Friday, October 1, 2010

Selective Sexual Teachings Have Become The Big Bully For Attacking Catholic Social Justice

The offending booklet described in this post had a very small advertisment for Planned Parenthood which mentioned contraceptive services.  Guess what happened next. 

This morning I read an in depth piece of reporting on the systemic attack on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.  The article is entitled "On the Left Side of God: How Politics and Religion Mix in the World of Charitable Giving.  It's focus is on the CCHD and the Catholic 'conservative' groups who are vetting every single grant CCHD has given to make sure it adheres to Catholic doctrine.  Based on the groups whose funding has been pulled, Catholic doctrine includes only two issues, women's reproductive health and gay rights.  It doesn't seem to matter how remote a given grantee is actually connected to another group who supports either issue. Even a whiff of smoke is enough to claim a raging fire of anti Catholicism  The following is the introduction and describes the connection with Planned Parenthood that cost one Portland OR grantee their funding:

A 4-inch-square, 96-page booklet once was considered the embodiment of social justice and empowerment of the poor, and for years, its publisher attracted financial backing from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development through the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon.....

That was until this spring, when a call to the office of Justice and Peace of the Archdiocese of Portland pointed out the offense on page 25. There, under the category of health care, was a listing for Planned Parenthood, which in a half-inch space included a description of the various basic services, including contraception, that the organization provides to low- or no-income customers seeking health care.

The message from CCHD managers at the Portland Archdiocese, although supportive of the booklet’s overall mission, was made clear in terms of funding: If Planned Parenthood remained in the booklet, CCHD, in keeping with Catholic teaching, could no longer fund Street Roots, the publisher of the Rose City Resource guide. Street Roots decided to keep the listing.

Since the fall of 2009 over 50 grantees have had their grants pulled with some of them asked to return their grant money.  In some cases this has left programs with no money at all to pay existing bills much less continue their services.  It matters not what the prime service is that these groups engage in, what matters is any whiff of association with an 'anti Catholic' group.  A grantee is especially anti Catholic if it has any association with Planned Parenthood or is judged to be 'marxist' in nature.  ACORN is an example of a marxist group. Community organizing in general seems to be 'marxist' activity and consequently anti Catholic.  In fact, the other two issues may just be the screen behind which the real target, that of community organizing, is hidden. 

Why did this campaign for Catholic orthodoxy start in the fall of 2009?  The conservative watch dogs claim it not about politics and had nothing to do with the fact the health care debate was at it 's hottest and most contentious.  Chris Korzen of Catholics United disagrees:

“These are politically motivated attacks,” says Chris Korzen, executive director of D.C.-based Catholics United, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization doing online advocacy and education programs around the Catholic Social Tradition. “And they fit into this broader narrative that we’re unfortunately seeing in our system now, where social change is limited to charity and not actually fixing social structures that cause poverty and other problems.”


The intent of these attacks, Korzen says, is to demonize community organizing behind the arguments against abortion and same-sex marriage. That’s the end result of what this campaign is doing,” Korzen says. “It’s taking away care from those who need it......

It’s not a new thing, Korzen says. Indeed, CCHD for decades has had its critics. But today it gets the added boost of leveraging political gains with a galvanized voting block, further inflamed by the personalities parading through our ever-expanding media options.


“For sure, we’ve seen a movement to the right in Catholic institutional settings, and I’d even go as far to say there are some elements of the Catholic institutions and some parts of the (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) that have essentially been taken over by the Republican Party. That sounds like a strong statement, but it’s the truth. Over the years, the conservative movement has worked very hard to cultivate support in the Catholic churches.”

Case in point, Korzen says, is the U.S. bishops’ opposition to the health care reform bill, which was singled out as a defundable offense by the reformers, “even though the Catholic Church believes that health care is a human right,” Korzen says. “That never would have happened in the 1980s.”

The cynic in me wonders why, if this is really about adhering to Catholic teaching, these watch dogs aren't going after programs that support and encourage dead beat dads.  Why do they only go after women's reproductive rights and gay marriage?  Abandoning responsibility for one's children seems to be as egregious as any other non procreative act, so why should these men, and the groups that give them any kind of support,  be left out of the equation?  If the USCCB is going to promote the totality of Catholic sexual teaching, it's way past time we dealt with the heterosexual male side of this equation. If it's with in Catholic guidelines to yank funding from a shelter for homeless gay kids because an affiliate of the shelter spoke against an anti gay marriage initiative, why should we support homeless shelters loaded with dead beat dads?  What kind of message does that send about the importance of upholding traditional marriage and traditional gender roles?  For that matter why should we be expected to support male politicians who practice serial monogamy or listen to male journalists who have engaged in sexual assault just because they spout on about abortion and gay marriage?  Why are we supporting the kind of hypocrisy which places the onus for upholding Catholic sexual morality on the backs of women and gays?  

I wonder if it has anything to do with who has control of all the money.  It probably does according to Matt Cato of the Portland Archdiocese Office of Justice and Peace:

“I’m not speaking for these organizations, but I do know that plenty of people are uncomfortable when a group of low-income or poor persons have power,” Cato says. “So you have the power of money, which corporations have, and you have the power of people, which is what community organizing is. The power of people which needs to balance the power of money, and that’s what community organizing is about, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with the poor having the voice.”

I think Matt is probably on to something here.  None of this campaign against CCHD has anything to do with the totality of Catholic sexual doctrine--a doctrine which most assuredly insists men use their sexual apparatus responsibly, take responsibility for their children, and not commit adultery.  Since this witch hunt is based strictly on one gender and one orientation, and it's real target is the 'marxism' of community organizing, one can only conclude none of this is really about upholding Catholic teaching.  It's about who keeps control of the power and the money.  Which is why the USCCB caves in to these right wing groups.  They too are about the power and the money and who gets to stay at the top of the pyramid.  And that is not just anti Catholic, it's anti Christ.

33 comments:

  1. I agree with you about their misplaced priorities.

    What happened to the good old pre-Vatican 2 days when every Catholic boy was told to "Keep your pecker in your pocket!"?

    Ah the good old days. Don't you long for a ceremony that uses a dead language and sexual teaching that use plain language?

    Those were the days. Morality was like television. It was black and white.

    In other news... Google translate will now do Latin. I'm not kidding.

    Today's Catholic conservatives can now be even less intelligible. Tweeting in Latin will become de rigeur.

    "Dude, custodis sed lacus pecker" (not a good translation, but I know the next one works.)

    "Semper ubi sububi"

    My new motto. hee, hee, hee.

    p2p

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The cynic in me wonders why, if this is really about adhering to Catholic teaching, these watch dogs aren't going after programs that support and encourage dead beat dads."

    Colleen, do you have a list of "programs that support and encourage dead beat dads."??

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is all part of the apostleship of wingnuttery that has taken over Catholic institutions and dioceses. Vlazny may want us to forget about taking the Diocese of Portland into bankruptcy over sexual abuse claims by pitching a hissy fit over the Planned Parenthood ad, but a lot of lay Catholics are acting per their consciences.

    ReplyDelete
  4. butterfly, I'd be far more interested in a list of Catholic organizations that aren't yanking back grants based on tangential aspects of Catholic teachings. Tangential to the purpose of the grant that is.
    Veronica

    ReplyDelete
  5. butterfly what I meant is that virtually any homeless shelter is working with a significant per centage of homeless men with biological children. If we use the same logic some of these rightwing groups do in their assessment of programs who work with homeless gay kids, we would have to say the very existence of homeless shelters who don't vet for men shirking their parental duties is enabling their sinful irresponsible promiscuous lifestyles. Avoiding child support is also a crime, which can't be said about being gay. We never hear anything about that though. I think we should, just to be fair and true to the entirety of Catholic sexual teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The CCHD is a major target because it is entirely funded by the USCCB. It's a perfect target for the rightwing to remind US bishops who they really need to be afraid of, and it ain't progressive organizations or bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love it! "the apostleship of wingnuttery" - a phrase that fits so much!

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, we don't hear anything about heterosexual men who sexually exploit women, who can't keep their pecker in their pocket, and have children with several women and who don't pay child support. The Bishops seem to have no problem in helping these dead beat dads out. It seems they believe it is all the women's fault if the men can't control their lust. Women are still supposed to be submissive, even if they are raped because even then they should be forced to have a child brought about by the devil rapist himself. It's a pecker's patriarchal paradise of consciousness that we are to follow, according to the RCC hierarchy of right wingnuts, and I agree, it is anti-Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  9. you've put your finger on it, butterfly. Women must be submissive to the church, except when priests want sex! Submissive... with an exception to it!

    Alternatively, women must assert themselves to make sure priests stay pure, but that's as far as assertiveness from women is allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. khughes1963: I'm sorry, but your misinformed, or simply choose to see every male wearing a roman collar as the hierarchal enemy. "Archbishop" Vlazny is not pitching a hissy on CCHD...

    It’s widely known that our Archdiocese is “CCHD Friendly” and that Archbishop Vlazny wholeheartedly supports the campaign. Any google concerning Arch. Vlazny and CCHD will clarify your error.

    He has also previously rebuked his own,(actually, he does so each CCHD season) within the diocese for publicly opposing the collection each year (which includes myself, and my blog) while encouraging support for CCHD programs both nationally and locally...

    Geez, I began this reply with the intention of addressing the article as well, but considering it's nearly 4am here on the west coast, it'll have to wait until this evening after work.

    Until then,
    james mary evans

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear James Mary Evans,

    As a physician, I can not always support parental notification for health care of all sorts. Many years ago, I had to get court orders to be able to give blood to children of Jehovah's Whiteness or these children would certainly have died. The idea that parents, often the impregnators of their own daughters, have a right to be notified for the welfare of their children can not be correct in most situations.

    I have never participated in an abortion because it would be too large a step for me personally to kill a developing fetus, but I can understand that there are some instances that I just can not be the judge of what is right or wrong for a woman and particularly one that was raped by her father or uncle or next door neighbor or anybody. For these reasons, I will not support any legal changes in parental notification that would in effect further contaminate these situations.

    It seems to me that Bishop Vianzy threw a defunding hissy when legislation Requiring parental notification that he wanted did not get through. He seems to be playing politics with the social needs of the poor. Some of the reasons for defunding were also about the providing of contraception to children. I firmly support the need to provide both information for contraception and the devices to poor children because this is one mechanism that certainly does decrease abortion.

    In the light of the recent Catholic crises over the Church’s own clerical sexual morals, many of these Bishops do not neglect to turn any stone looking for a place to defund poor people. It seems that they are attempting to hide behind righteous outrage while defunding the needs of the poor. Perhaps, this defunding is beginning with the Catholic laity that in ever increasing numbers are defunding the Bishops.

    This group of laity are sending their charitable contributions to non Catholic sources like the Salvation Army because Catholic morality and sexual teaching (now being made mandates for the laity) are simply not following the logic of ethical living! These mandates are proclaimed by unethical old men trying to hang on to the comfortable life as a powerful church official

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way James, can you give me a reason why the "Williamette Weekly" news proclaimed the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, rogue of the week for its CCHD defunding. Sometimes people do Google a situation when it is suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  13. rdp46: My response--

    As a physician, I cannot always support parental notification for health care of all sorts. Many years ago, I had to get court orders to be able to give blood to children of Jehovah's Whiteness or these children would certainly have died. The idea that parents, often the impregnators of their own daughters, have a right to be notified for the welfare of their children can not be correct in most situations.

    [Extraordinary situation here… An abnormal situational argument as basis for normalizing denying parents the right of notification concerning their own children doesn’t fly. Parents are the primordial educators (and defenders) of their underage children, not the state. You and I both know your argument avoids the day-to-day real norm that little Judy can (legally, and with both the support and education from state sponsored killing factories such as Planned Parenthood) get away with not telling her parents she’s pregnant and get her abortion; thus, enabling the child (little Judy) to commit mortal sin. Your logic mimics the way of the world and not the ways of God; consider setting aside your worldly logic for a period of time, and then really consider “spiritually” what it means for God on earth to say of Himself: “I am the life of the world.” If you allow, as St. Peter suggests, the morning star to rise within your heart, and the Word Himself will reveal within your own flesh why it is impossible for us to say that we love God and hate our neighbor. This refreshing of truth through the presence of authentic divine wisdom will reeducate your conscience toward the same wisdom found within church teaching on the subject, and a time will come when you will be appalled by the abomination you’ve been taught to defend.

    By parents, I assume you mean fathers [“often”(?)] impregnate their daughter’s.]

    Cont...

    ReplyDelete
  14. rdp46 cont...

    I have never participated in an abortion because it would be too large a step for me personally to kill a developing fetus, but I can understand that there are some instances that I just can not be the judge of what is right or wrong for a woman and particularly one that was raped by her father or uncle or next door neighbor or anybody. For these reasons, I will not support any legal changes in parental notification that would in effect further contaminate these situations.

    […Another instance wherein we need the help of church teaching to help form our conscience… But, I realize your disdain. Which is why I proposed the above contemplation.]

    It seems to me that Bishop Vianzy threw a defunding hissy when legislation Requiring parental notification that he wanted did not get through. He seems to be playing politics with the social needs of the poor. Some of the reasons for defunding were also about the providing of contraception to children. I firmly support the need to provide both information for contraception and the devices to poor children because this is one mechanism that certainly does decrease abortion.
    [The poor don’t need to inhibit propagation and kill their own children. These arguments all remind me of those who once tried to trap Jesus on the subject of divorce: Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but it and (your argument for contraceptives and abortion) was not from the beginning… Was it? Well, not until that liar and murderer had his way, and death entered the world…]

    In the light of the recent Catholic crises over the Church’s own clerical sexual morals, many of these Bishops do not neglect to turn any stone looking for a place to defund poor people. It seems that they are attempting to hide behind righteous outrage while defunding the needs of the poor. Perhaps, this defunding is beginning with the Catholic laity that in ever increasing numbers are defunding the Bishops.

    [Ah, conspiracy theories… There has been long-term (years) protesting of CCHD. To my knowledge, there are only 13 Bishop’s who’ve decided to abandon the program this year; Hardly, a concerted effort to hide behind the crisis.]

    This group of laity are sending their charitable contributions to non Catholic sources like the Salvation Army because Catholic morality and sexual teaching (now being made mandates for the laity) are simply not following the logic of ethical living! These mandates are proclaimed by unethical old men trying to hang on to the comfortable life as a powerful church official

    [I’ll let this sour comment speak for itself.]

    Prayers for that eternal day when all suffering and death will have ended…

    jme

    ReplyDelete
  15. rdp46 cont...

    I have never participated in an abortion because it would be too large a step for me personally to kill a developing fetus, but I can understand that there are some instances that I just can not be the judge of what is right or wrong for a woman and particularly one that was raped by her father or uncle or next door neighbor or anybody. For these reasons, I will not support any legal changes in parental notification that would in effect further contaminate these situations.

    […Another instance wherein we need the help of church teaching to help form our conscience… But, I realize your disdain. Which is why I proposed the above contemplation.]

    It seems to me that Bishop Vianzy threw a defunding hissy when legislation Requiring parental notification that he wanted did not get through. He seems to be playing politics with the social needs of the poor. Some of the reasons for defunding were also about the providing of contraception to children. I firmly support the need to provide both information for contraception and the devices to poor children because this is one mechanism that certainly does decrease abortion.
    [The poor don’t need to inhibit propagation and kill their own children. These arguments all remind me of those who once tried to trap Jesus on the subject of divorce: Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but it and (your argument for contraceptives and abortion) was not from the beginning… Was it? Well, not until that liar and murderer had his way, and death entered the world…]

    Cont...

    ReplyDelete
  16. By the way James, can you give me a reason why the "Williamette Weekly" news proclaimed the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, rogue of the week for its CCHD defunding. Sometimes people do Google a situation when it is suggested.

    [So, you caught me, or rather My Archbishop--defunding one grant... Okay, so it's your turn for a bit of honesty: How many articles from the Catholic Sentinel did you discover in the same Google search wherein Arch. Bishop Vlazny defended the program over many years?

    Really, you don't know our diocese.]

    Note: Sorry for the double comment.

    jme

    ReplyDelete
  17. fratres the problem I have with your logic is that once again you leave the male part of the equation of abortion out of your calculations. Little Judy takes the whole load of blame and sin. If our hearts were fully informed by God, we would insist both sets of parents were notified since both sets of parents have a vested interest in the coming child and both are responsible for the sinful and immoral behavior of their children.

    Why doesn't the pro life movement demand mandatory paternity tests as well as notification of both sets of parents? As it stands now it is pretty obvious the Church has a prerential option for completely blaming the Eve's for the sins committed equally by the Adam's. To me this indicates a heart only half way informed by God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. quote
    The poor don’t need to inhibit propagation
    unquote

    Well, that's 1 way to ensure the poor would always be with us as Christ foretold. What I don't understand is why this is such a good thing for the RCC or society in general.

    Veronica

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Frates,

    Incest is NOT an extra ordinary situation, but occurs all too often.

    I once killed a deer, never could hunt again, I used to fish, but after learning to scuba dive did not want to fish again. I never wanted to participate in abortions, I am not certain how much this was a result of church teaching or as above my own feelings! I certainly do not support laws that would make abortion totally illegal because many of these situations are too contaminated for fallible people to decide for other fallible people. It must be left to the consciences of the woman that it involves. An example is what recently happened in Brazil when a 13 year old was impregnated with twins by her step father-- the child, the mother and doctors were all excommunicated but the step father was not. In fact he was not even chastised by the Bishop. The "roman catholic" morals of this situation were simply not ethical!

    As far as not knowing the Diocese of Portland, I lived there for five years and have family members that I visit there. Portland is a beautiful city that has done a lot to make itself very livable, but since 2000 the diocese there went off the rails!

    I certainly found a lot of propaganda put out by the Diocese of Portland being "good guys" but the diocese political actions speak louder than words-- --Vlazny through quite a hissy when the people did not vote to support his political agenda!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hate to correct you Dennis, but the girl in Brazil was a whopping nine years old. But as you point out heterosexual Adam is never held accountable for his own egregious sexual sins that end in abortion and incest is not an isolated event. see Marcial Maciel.

    We should never forget that our reality is fundamentally based in probabilities. Applying an absolute standard is fruitless and futile, which is why a pastoral dynamic based in compassion and love is far more useful in guiding people to an understanding a God of Love and treating each other with compassion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I found an awesome web site that has tons of info regarding child support and related topics! www.deadbeatdad.us

    ReplyDelete
  23. Colleen, I am glad you corrected me, it just seems incomprehensible that she could have been 9 and treated so poorly by both the fathers of the Church and her own step father.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."
    They equate contraception with killing children and try to force their idea of morality on the rest of the country.
    They use the term "inhibit propagation" for the poor as though the are talking about viruses or bacteria rather than people.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Art, like morality, consists of drawing lines somewhere." - GK Chesterton

    All of the vibrancy, passion, vocations, and future belong to the young orthodox part of the Church Militant. The term "dissent is sterile" is so true!

    I suppose that it must be somewhat bittersweet to have thought you were in the vanguard of change in the late 1960s and to come to the realization that not only are you in the rearguard, but also in a stagnant backwater..

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon, I feel incredible sadness for future generations of Catholics if the trend you describe has as much truth as you seem to think. Catholicism will be a barren wasteland of sin and hell avoidance with it's attendant pathological fixation on the self and sexual sin. Narcissists will rule the priesthood and despair will have it's way with the faithful. Truly if this is what you want, you can have it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon,

    I've taught high school theology for more years than you could guess, and let me assure you that you are delusional when you speak about the younger generation of Church militant. They are not "'60s hippies," to be sure, but they just ignore or reject what they don't like about Church teaching...or they abandon the Church altogether.

    Oh, I present magisterial teachings along with the attendant rationale. And the results do not bode well for the "Church militant." Do you honestly think that a young woman really buys into the teaching that only males can be priests because only they as males can image Christ to the community? C'mon.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kevin, I've shared this before, but it is worth repeating here. I went to a talk from a nun who wanted to prove the need for the church to ordain women. She ended up being an apologist for male priesthood only. Her first ten minutes of her talk were on what the church does not believe. For example, we used to teach that women, subservient to men, were not qualified to be the alter Christus. She specifically stated that the Church has rejected that line of reasoning, along with many others.

    Her proof hung upon the fact that we've never ordained women, and that even early church writings see the ordination of women as wrong. She states the argument in careful terms, specifically that the church does not feel empowered to change the historical response. It is a claim of neutrality, a shrug of the shoulders that allows injustice because God said so.

    Now, I believe there are errors in this reading of history. Those errors are better elucidated elsewhere. It seems to me that the ritual of the Seder meal Last Supper demands that women were present for the institution of the priesthood. It seems that our history has been redacted to marginalize the female strength. I wish I had asked this speaker, in light of the many arguments which she noted that the Church used for centuries but believes no longer, how she thought those mistakes were motivated and why she feels this latest theory won't be debunked like all the others. However, your presentation to your class contains a bit of a "straw man" argument, and I hate those from the traditionals so I don't like them from my perspective as well.

    PS Been listening to EWTN Radio lately. They give a huge sales pitch for all the young people coming to traditional values, with the old unhappy leftist dinosaurs dying away. It strikes me so much like the young healthy people in the cigarette ads. Your experience is what I hear from real people all around me, from conservative to liberal. Thanks for being part of the faithful that keeps hope and spreads the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You pick out one case from a 9 year old, but 99% of abortions are for reasons of convienance. shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No one ever mentions the woman who gave the blessing of the light?

    Why is that?

    -Kathryn

    ReplyDelete
  31. The word verification ghost cautions me: doves

    Could anon @ 5:17 be any more wrong? What an immature judgment of the past and future of the Church.

    You have no understanding of the 60's or 70's and condemn that era out of hand. Believe me, whatever you think you know about that era is wrong. What do you envision the Church to be, something like 1850? or 1870? or 1300 CE?

    And what of the topic here? Social justice... Do you comfort the sick? Do you visit those in jail? Do you make peace, not war? Do you feed the hungry? Do you clothe the naked? No.

    You and the rest of your "orthodox" friends delude yourselves. Here you are commenting on a story in the Palm Beach Post about women priests:

    Dissent is sterile because only a small number of people will want to join these former Catholics in their stagnant backwater. The Church will continue to move forward while those living in the past of the 1960s and 1970s will slowly one-by-one fade away.

    If you want to do an interesting story from another perspective do one on the many large Catholic families that are bring forth many vocations. They are young, vibrant, full of joy, and the future.
    Average American
    3:35 PM, 8/1/2010


    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/on-the-west-coast-of-florida-a-small-834535.html?sort=asc&page=3&more_comments=true

    Address the topic. Don't be the bully. Debate on the facts. Quote scripture if you choose. Here's one:

    ""There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

    What do you say to that 60's hippie freak, Paul?, yeah 60 CE... ? uhhh doh Anno Domini

    p2p

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Colleen

    I realize I am sometimes a bit off topic or may come at things in an unorthodox fashion.

    One of my earlier comments was deleted. I will attempt to make the point in a more acceptable manner. I regret violating your community standards.

    1. The bishops and church leadership continues to emphasize salvation requires the church. One must be "bonded" or under the control of the church. In these days it seems to mean the laity has not choice but to obey or leave.

    2. The teachings on sexuality emphasize almost to the exclusion of anything else, self-discipline. Some Catholics, including Opus Dei, practice corporal mortification with a discipline, or type of whip. The concept is represented by the device. So when I see these selective sexual teachings in my mind's eye I see the people being beaten, whipped.

    3. Today those who emphasize the pre-Vatican 2 approach to sexuality have completely lost any perspective, if they had any to begin with, of equality between the sexes. Their approach to sexuality is one of command and control. Do as I say. Obey. Women are expected, in the context of this discussion to submit to men. This type of relationship is one of domination and submission. Even among men the laity are expected to bow in submission to the clergy who consider themselves to be superior, set apart. And yet these men have a distorted, even perverted view of sexuality.

    So that's the point I was trying to make. I came to this blog and community because of your discussion of clerical sex abuse, an issue of sexual perversion.

    I cannot help but visualize and otherwise associate the sexual abuse issue within the Church with the practices that I have named, perversions that at one time were considered pathological by the the psychology profession.

    I hope this time I've been clear and within the community standards of your blog. Bullying on sexual issues is an abuse of power, at least as I see it.

    p2p

    4.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Paul, I didn't delete your comment, I just forgot to check for unpublished comments until this evening.

    I've spent the day doing research for a book I'm supposed to be writing and some of the research dovetails with your observations.

    In personality studies of skeptics of psi and religious phenomenon it is consistently found that 75% are male, overly reliant on rational thinking, highly competitive, and dominant in behavior. They see their main goal in debunking psy phenomenon as protecting the social order from chaos and magical thinking.

    Doesn't matter how many highly controlled scientific studies prove the existence of psi phenomenon. For these men it doesn't exist and can't possibly exist. It's a big problem for scientists working in the psi field because the skeptics control all the grant money. Well, except for money available from defense and intelligence agencies, which is how a lot of the research is funded.

    Male fundamentalists do not like their concepts of the scientific or social order threatened, and no matter how rational they claim they are, they will act totally irrational when it suits the preservation of the rational and male dominated social order.

    ReplyDelete