So, try telling me that the Catholic Church is not misogynistic, now

Posted: November 24, 2009 in atheism, feminism, pope, religion, wtf?
Tags: , , , , , ,

Be cautious though, because I might bite off your entire face.

The internets have been in uproar because an USian politician was barred from taking the communion (also known as Le Cracker Game) for his pro-choice stance.

What, however, very few have noticed it that you will be barred from communion for being pro-choice, but not for being pro-death penalty or starting a war, actually:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

The pope Palpatine wrote this memo before he was actually pope. It is however pretty apparent that his opinion has not changed much, at least not for the better. And, by all means, go and read the entire thing!

What you will find: you can also not be allowed to take the communion if you voted for a politician who supported women’s rights was pro-choice because of the fact that they were pro-choice.

So, let me get this straight. It’s OK to kill people and kill moar people just because your country tells you to, but as soon as so much as squeak out that maybe a woman should have the right to decide what happens to her body, you’ve committed a grave sin?

How nice to be reminded about the priorities that the Catholic Church has. Really nice!

 

Comments
  1. David says:

    The Catholic Church is not misogynistic. Now or ever. Criticize all you want, bucko, but death penalty killings are justified, and sometimes death in war is justified. Killing a person who hasn’t been born is never justified outright, but in the case of sparing the mother’s life, is acceptible. Killing for convenience is never acceptible.

    The Church has always and forever been about protecting innocent people. Plain and simple, end of story.

    • The church has always and forever been misogynistic. And so are you. Plain and simple, end of story.

      Also, funny how you’re getting all sanctimonious over a problem that is not yours in the first place. How convenient.

    • David :
      The Catholic Church is not misogynistic. Now or ever. Criticize all you want, bucko, but death penalty killings are justified, and sometimes death in war is justified. Killing a person who hasn’t been born is never justified outright, but in the case of sparing the mother’s life, is acceptible. Killing for convenience is never acceptible.
      The Church has always and forever been about protecting innocent people. Plain and simple, end of story.

      Fetus. Is. Not. Actual. Person. So if you are proponent of protection of fetuses, why not to treat alredy born people (and fetuses) as dead bodies?

  2. David says:

    It is my business when you try to disparage my faith. And if you think abortion doesn’t hurt everyone, you’re an idiot. How can the Catholic Church be misogynistic when the Church declares the greatest human in history to be a woman? As for me, you don’t know me, so your labels are meaningless.

    • 1. I’m not disparaging your faith. Hello, facts! Fact 1: an institution known as CC is misogynistic.
      2. You claim it isn’t? Well, and what proof do you have apart from your claims? And whining? Just saying something very very loudly doesn’t make it magically true.
      (Also, I’d like to remind you that your church frowns upon magic)
      (Allegedly)
      3. “The greatest human in history”? If by that you mean Mary, I’d like to point out that she’s not the “greatest human in history”. This is because there’s no evidence she ever actually existed.
      You know how we call people who never existed? That’s right, fictional.
      4. Your pathetic whining is pathetic. Please try harder. If you want to discuss something seriously, and not make yourself look stupid, please maybe try mentioning facts from time to time?
      5. Just because you believe a bunch of cells parasting in the abdomen of the female homo sapiens for 9 months has a magical sould that makes it suffer when it’s removed with a coat-hanger doesn’t make it true.
      Personally, I believe sparrows transform into sparkly pink unicorns when we’re not looking. Still, not true.
      6. You’re a poopyhead.
      7. Misogynistic poopyhead.
      8. And so is the pope.

      • David says:

        1. You are, and it’s not.
        2. Prove your own claims. What you say is not true. And you’re right, saying something loudly doesn’t make it true.
        3. If you’re interested, I can take you to where she lived. And again, saying something doesn’t make it true. I can back up my claims.
        4. Just because you say the facts aren’t true doesn’t make them untrue to anyone but you.
        5. Science also shows that those cells are human. They can be nothing else.
        6.7.8.You are a lucky child. Lucky to have been allowed to live.

    • David :
      It is my business when you try to disparage my faith. And if you think abortion doesn’t hurt everyone, you’re an idiot. How can the Catholic Church be misogynistic when the Church declares the greatest human in history to be a woman? As for me, you don’t know me, so your labels are meaningless.

      O course abortion can hurt. But only a mother. And just baceuse one obedient women is saint acording to catholic doctrine this doesn’t means, that catholic faith and church aren’t misoynistic. It is, it declares abortion immoral and catholics are very often against laws that make abortion od demand legal.

  3. czescjacek says:

    @David
    “How can the Catholic Church be misogynistic when the Church declares the greatest human in history to be a woman?”

    I didn’t know the catholics declared my granny to be the greatest human in history.

    • So. Is he real or is he a guy from #ttdkn trolling here for the lulz? Because, I think he’s too articulate to be so stupid for real. It was the schtick about the murder that is getting rid of human cell that finally did it for me, I think.

      I mean. I’m lolling, so it certainly works. But. Whooo???

  4. David says:

    oh, humor…u funny.

  5. David :

    1. You are, and it’s not.
    2. Prove your own claims. What you say is not true. And you’re right, saying something loudly doesn’t make it true.
    3. If you’re interested, I can take you to where she lived. And again, saying something doesn’t make it true. I can back up my claims.
    4. Just because you say the facts aren’t true doesn’t make them untrue to anyone but you.
    5. Science also shows that those cells are human. They can be nothing else.
    6.7.8.You are a lucky child. Lucky to have been allowed to live.

    1. Yes it is. As a woman, you know, I might sort of know better.
    2. Hilarious. My post sort of, you know, proves it. But OK, I get it, you’re in denial.
    3.And I can take you where Marduk, Anna Karenina and Kilgore Trout lived, too. Does it make them any less fictional than they are?
    4. I’m sorry, what facts are you talking about? Because you haven’t stated any.
    5. My nails are also made of human cells, and yet I cut them every now and then. HIDEOUS! NAIL ABORTIOOOOON!1!!1!!!!!!!!
    6.7.8. <– Princess, poopyheads such as yourself haven't been getting to decide who lives and who doesn't for some time now. Also, and you say you value human life? Right, like, only in angry old white men who happen to agree with you.
    (And you know how it's called? Misogyny!)

  6. David says:

    Being reverent to women is not misogynistic, regardless of what gender you are or what you say. Concern for women has always been Catholic doctrine. I guess you think it’s misogynistic to not allow women to be priests, or something. Then call Jesus a misogynist, because we only follow his way. And since he’s God, I’ll take His way over your words, any day. Women serve God in different ways, so what? Mary is not the only woman we admire, either. Many of the most important people in the Church are…women. Thousands of women have been made saints. Mother Teresa is one of the most recent. St. Faustyna is another. Like me to waste your space and name the others?

    Sendaiano, you haven’t presented any facts, either, just your skewed opinion. And I KNOW Mary lived without any doubt, whereas you and I both know Ana Karenina etc did not.
    It’s alright, I guess you’ll find out when your life comes to its miserable end.

    • “Being reverent to women” is not misogynistic?
      I can’t even begin to imagine what you mean by that. Can’t you just respect humans for being humans, and because it’s a decent, ethical thing to do, and not cover up your misogyny with pretty words like “being a gentleman” or “revering”?

      Yup, I guess you can’t.

      Nice, only Catholic concern for women has only resulted in burnt witches (of both sexes, but most of them women), oppression of women, women being murdered during crusades (the pope back than was totally enamoured of the idea of killing infidels. Sort of like Al Qaida is now, don’t you agree?), women being denied basic rights, like abortion, the right to vote, and so on, and all sorts of fail so far. I’d say, either the Catholic Church is totally ineffective or, you know, misogynistic.

      Mother Theresa was a complete and utter bitch.

      Oh, “important women”? By which you mean the sheeple without whose money and devotion the fragile egos of the angry old men in Vatican would forever be shattered? Oh gosh, but where are the women in positions of power in the church? Nowhere? What a surprise! Oh, I know, I know what you’ll say. That they don’t want power. However, it’s sort of hard to take your claims about what the wimminz want at face value, because you’re not a woman yourself. So, how would you know? You read it in Cosmo?
      Actually, I bet even Cosmo wouldn’t publish drivel like that.

      Yeah, but you only know that Mary lived because you choose to believe in the fascinating work of fiction that is the Bible being a non-fiction schtick that tells you that she did live. Anna Karenina is also claimed to be a real person in Anna Karenina. I’m not skewing anything. You’re just sort of, really dumb.

      Why thank you, and a good day to you too!
      (Also, you’re a poopyhead)
      (The Bible says so)
      (Also, check out Ex 21-22, princess)

      ETA: fixed my tags
      ETA: fixed the link.

      • David says:

        Fact is that Catholics are generally reverent to all people, but women are people, or don’t you think so?

        Catholics didn’t burn witches, protestants did. Learn history before you try to spout it. Also, back up your statements with some fact. Catholics didn’t oppress women, didn’t deny them the right to vote, (and so on). Try to learn about the Crudsades before you just dismiss them. While the Church started the Crusades, it was armies from countries that did them. The reasons for the Crusades were valid, even if they were ineffective, and they were not targeted at women. Abortion was never in history a right, and at all times it was considered a crime, until now.

        So far you haven’t done anything but spew vomit, you have nothing to back it up with. And no, it’s not just from the Bible that we know Mary existed. Did you know that the New Testament has more historical backing than any other work from its time? No, I guess you don’t know that.

  7. nameste says:

    @senadai: fix also mother-Theresa-bitch-link.

  8. David :

    This is a fact, senaiano.

    And you can’t read, poopyhead.

  9. David :

    Fact is that Catholics are generally reverent to all people, but women are people, or don’t you think so?

    Catholics didn’t burn witches, protestants did. Learn history before you try to spout it. Also, back up your statements with some fact. Catholics didn’t oppress women, didn’t deny them the right to vote, (and so on). Try to learn about the Crudsades before you just dismiss them. While the Church started the Crusades, it was armies from countries that did them. The reasons for the Crusades were valid, even if they were ineffective, and they were not targeted at women. Abortion was never in history a right, and at all times it was considered a crime, until now.

    So far you haven’t done anything but spew vomit, you have nothing to back it up with. And no, it’s not just from the Bible that we know Mary existed. Did you know that the New Testament has more historical backing than any other work from its time? No, I guess you don’t know that.

    Catholics didn’t burn witches? You’re USian, aren’t you? ‘Cause, in Europe, they sort of did. Sort of did burn anything that moved. Witches, heretics, scientists, you name it, they burned it.

    The stuff you say about crusades is 1. lies, 2. stupid, 3. inaccurate. Also, if crusades are not targeted at woman (but civilians always suffer most during a war, anyway), it makes them magically all right?
    Ahahaha, NO.
    And they were right how? I mean, genocide is OK as long as you try to convert some people before you kill them? Haha, no! Also, you’re a little disgusting poopyhead.

    NT has historical backing? Do you even know what history is? Because, no. Just because some historical personnages appear in a work of fiction, it doesn’t make it any less fictional. There’re historical figures in Anna Karenina, too, and yet!
    Also, 1 century Syro-Palestine is one of the best documented periods in ancient history. And yet, no source other than NT ever mentions stuff that is mentioned in NT. I WONDER WHY OH WAIT-
    It’s only from NT that we know about the story of Mary. Do try to quote the other sources. Just, there aren’t any.

    So how does lying for Jesus pay nowadays?

  10. David :

    Fact is that Catholics are generally reverent to all people, but women are people, or don’t you think so?

    Catholics didn’t burn witches, protestants did. Learn history before you try to spout it. Also, back up your statements with some fact. Catholics didn’t oppress women, didn’t deny them the right to vote, (and so on). Try to learn about the Crudsades before you just dismiss them. While the Church started the Crusades, it was armies from countries that did them. The reasons for the Crusades were valid, even if they were ineffective, and they were not targeted at women. Abortion was never in history a right, and at all times it was considered a crime, until now.

    So far you haven’t done anything but spew vomit, you have nothing to back it up with. And no, it’s not just from the Bible that we know Mary existed. Did you know that the New Testament has more historical backing than any other work from its time? No, I guess you don’t know that.

    Also, ever heard of Malleus Maleficarum, also known as the Hexenhammer? ‘Cause its authors were totally endorsed by the pope, you know.

    • David says:

      You think that, because a couple of priests wrote a book together, this makes the entire Catholic Church guilty? The fact that the Malleus was popular does not imply that it accurately reflected or influenced actual practice. This is like confusing a television docu-drama with actual court documents.

    • David says:

      Actually, the Catholic Church did not burn witches, heretics or scientists. In fact the majority of scientists were…Catholic priests. They certainly held trials, but left it to the government to decide what to do with them, and always urged reformation over death penalty.
      I didn’t say the Crusades were ok, but the Church’s actual participation is minimal. The actual reason for the Crusades was noble. But it was the Muslims that were endangering Catholics in Jerusalem (making, by your definition, Muslims misogynistic). But go ahead, keep drinking the kool-aid. I guess you’ll find out what’s right when you open your eyes.

      • I actually feel sorry for you, you now? No wonder you have very little time to check your facts if your brain is constantly busy finding rationalisations for your being an adherent of an organisation that supported genocide and oppression left and right when it had enough power and influence to do so. I mean, that must be so tough!

        In fact the majority of scientists were…Catholic priests.

        Why hello, thar, ignorace. They were because back than being a priest was an easy way to get money when you had none.
        And also, CC was so pro-science that Copernicus’ book (do you even know who he was?) was on the CC’s index of forbidden books until 1758? And have you forgotten what church did to Galileo? And who killed Giordano Bruno?

        Also, as far as I remember, lying is still a sin.

        . But it was the Muslims that were endangering Catholics in Jerusalem.

        Yeah, and the Czech people were endangering the German people in Sudetenland, so Hitler just had to go and help them. And by help, I mean “go and kill as many ppl as possible yay”.

        I get it, I get it, lying must be hard, but next time? Do please try to get your lies in order, so that, you know, maybe at least one person is fooled.

        I didn’t say the Crusades were ok, but the Church’s actual participation is minimal.

        So what else should the popes have done? Apart from encouraging everybody to kill the infidels? Try to kill some themselves? Right, not.
        Have you got any idea about how a feudal society works? I mean, let me help you: sort of like the church, in that there are some people on the top, and many on the bottom, and the ones on the top tend not to charge at the enemy all that much.

        Of course, you could read the Song of Roland. I know it’s hard to find time for reading when you’re so busy being in denial and lying, but, do bear with me:

        LXXXIX

        From the other part is the Archbishop Turpin,
        He pricks his horse and mounts upon a hill;
        Calling the Franks, sermon to them begins:
        “My lords barons, Charles left us here for this;
        He is our King, well may we die for him:
        To Christendom good service offering.
        Battle you’ll have, you all are bound to it,
        For with your eyes you see the Sarrazins.
        Pray for God’s grace, confessing Him your sins!
        For your souls’ health, I’ll absolution give
        So, though you die, blest martyrs shall you live,
        Thrones you shall win in the great Paradis.”
        The Franks dismount, upon the ground are lit.
        That Archbishop God’s Benediction gives,
        For their penance, good blows to strike he bids.

        Aaah. Sort of like Al Qaida, huh? Only no virgins in the paradise.

        CXXVI

        That Archbishop begins the fight again,
        Sitting the horse which he took from Grossaille
        –That was a king he had in Denmark slain;–
        That charger is swift and of noble race;
        Fine are his hooves, his legs are smooth and straight,
        Short are his thighs, broad crupper he displays,
        Long are his ribs, aloft his spine is raised,
        White is his tail and yellow is his mane,
        Little his ears, and tawny all his face;
        No beast is there, can match him in a race.
        That Archbishop spurs on by vassalage,
        He will not pause ere Abisme he assail;
        So strikes that shield, is wonderfully arrayed,
        Whereon are stones, amethyst and topaze,
        Esterminals and carbuncles that blaze;
        A devil’s gift it was, in Val Metase,
        Who handed it to the admiral Galafes;
        So Turpin strikes, spares him not anyway;
        After that blow, he’s worth no penny wage;
        The carcass he’s sliced, rib from rib away,
        So flings him down dead in an empty place.
        Then say the Franks: “He has great vassalage,
        With the Archbishop, surely the Cross is safe.”

        Not too much too read, I should hope.

        Darling poopyhead: the crusades were fully supported by the church, the church encouraged people to crusade and kill moar people, and it was a clear to the church back than, as it was to regular non-priest persons.

        So, how’s that lying working out for you? ‘Cause, srsly, I guess we’d have a good chance of meeting in hell, only, it sort of doesn’t exist. Pity. I’d certainly enjoy that.

  11. David says:

    When you point the finger of ignorance, you have four pointed at yourself…Priests earned no money, buddy. So the fact that most scientists were priests has nothing to do with money. It has to do with having knowledge. And your knowledge of Copernicus and Gallileo shows how little you know about Catholicism. Tell me, Einstein, what did the Catholic Church do to Gallileo? (for the correct answer go here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Galileo.htm And why wouldn’t the Church ban a book that was wrong, or which facts could not be proven, as Copernicus did?? (also the book was banned until 1822) Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Roman government after the Church found him guilty of a crime-heresy.
    Dear Einstein, where did I say that the Church wasn’t behind the Crusades? Sure, they preached to the people and told them that it would be a holy act of courage to go and defend the Church against the Muslims. Absolutely. But I don’t see very many priests or bishops or popes conducting any fighting, and the Church did not finance the action. Also, it was the kings of Europe that led the fighting. It was also the kings of Europe and the soldiers who fought that committed all the massacres. Yes, they did it in the name of the church, but they did it as individual governments. Again, I am not defending the actions, but the ideal was correct. After hundreds of years of fighting the Muslims throughout the Mediterranean, there is an element of retaliation, which is never right, but often understandable. But then again, you think Al Qaeda was right, don’t you. Einstein. I suggest you learn your facts before suggesting that you’re an expert in history. Or science, or misogyny.

    • Ausir says:

      If we were to ban all books that are “wrong” and whose “facts cannot be proven”, we’d need to start with the Bible.

    • Started reading, got as far as “priests didn’t earn money”, and well. Seriously, maybe you should read up on the history of your own church? This is a blog, not “tell ignorant people where to get their facts” charity.

      As usual, you’re wrooooong, princess.

      • David says:

        Nope, why not show me where these priests took a salary to feed themselves and pay for their expenses. How much per day or week or year? Hmmm? rather than spout generic crap like those global warming idiots, present some facts, einstein.

  12. David :

    Show me something in the Bible that you can disprove or is in error.

    Like, dunno, the whole of Genesis?

    Sweetheart, maybe it’s time to go offline now? You’re really not helping your case much.

    Unless the case was “make Christians look as stupid and ridiculous as possible in under 200 words”. In which case, you passed with flying colours.

    • David says:

      Really? Disprove it then. I’ll wait. I won’t hold my breath though.

      • Sooo, you believe the universe was created in 7 days by a vaguely anthropomorhic Wettergott from ANE?
        The onus of proof is on you, then. I believe, a famous philosopher once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  13. David :

    Nope, why not show me where these priests took a salary to feed themselves and pay for their expenses. How much per day or week or year? Hmmm? rather than spout generic crap like those global warming idiots, present some facts, einstein.

    Salary-schmalary. Obviously you can’t even parse that mediaeval economy could be different from today’s. Anyway, prebendaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prebendary

    Note how it was the source of income for canons. Copernicus was a canon.

    • David says:

      Oh, yeah, income such as bread, meat, vegetables and wine for sustenance. Services in kind. You are an ID10T.

      • Services in kind? Omd, I feel sorry for you.

        Do you even realise what prebendaries are? AA+ for making Catholics look inexcusably dumb, that’s for sure.

        I’d suggest you read up on that, but I know it will fall on deaf ears, so, whatever. Your mum is hot.

  14. David says:

    sendaianonymous :Sooo, you believe the universe was created in 7 days by a vaguely anthropomorhic Wettergott from ANE?The onus of proof is on you, then. I believe, a famous philosopher once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Um, Genesis is not a scientific manual, nor historic. In fact, the beginning of Genesis is poetic, and tells a story. No proof required, einstein. There’s really no science or mathematics in the Bible. A good deal of verifiable history, though. I can, however, pick apart the theory of evolution for you, if you like. But I guess that carries more weight for you. Nope you haven’t shown any error in the Bible yet.

    • Pick apart the theory of evolution? Ahahaha, hilarious.

      Also, I assure you that at the time Genesis was written it was taken absolutely at face value.

      Well, then. Since you’re so adamant about obfuscating about Genesis, take a look at anything the Bible says about Assyrians, and take a look at your history book. You will find yourself with a few curious discrepancies.

      • David says:

        There are very few absolutely proven facts in science. There are huge holes. But some of it’s very right. I guess you can assure me that ‘back then’, Genesis was taken as fact, because…you were there? Truth is, ‘back then’, it was the best they could do to explain why the world was there.
        What Assyrian event would you like to declaim? Stop it with your stupid insinuations and show facts, einstein.

      • Ausir says:

        Not to mention all the numerous inconsistencies between various parts of the Bible itself. You don’t even need to go beyond it.

  15. Ausir :

    Not to mention all the numerous inconsistencies between various parts of the Bible itself. You don’t even need to go beyond it.

    3…2…1 until David comes down on you from whatever trip he is on now, expertly wielding the POETIC METAPHUUUUUR argument.

    You know, I’m actually embarrassed for him. I mean, I have Catholic friends. They don’t deserve this =_=

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s