sex and religion

Red Herring Alert: Covering Viagra Didn't Inspire Church-Employee Orgies So Neither Will Contraception Coverage

Wed, 2012-01-25 19:00

Image by Flickr user Mark Klotz. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Image by Flickr user Mark Klotz. Used under a Creative Commons license.

In a review of historic opposition to contraception in the face of President Obama's directive that (virtually) all employee healthcare plans fund contraception for women the way they fund Viagra and Cialis for men E.J. Graff first reviews the biggest standard, historic objection to contraception

Late-19th- and early-20th-century pundits said that the nation would become a bordello if anyone could have sex without consequences and warned of the death of the American family.

Source: TAPPED

And finds it wanting (emphasis mine)

In other words, women can work for Catholic hospitals, colleges, social-services groups, and so on—and still have the same rights to sexual health coverage as men, under the same plans. All that Viagra needn't lead to either 19 children and counting; to abortions; or to impoverished women.

Ouch!

The Viagra-but-no-pill argument actually cuts two ways with hidebound institutions such as the Catholic and many Protestant churches. Their argument against contraception is that it interferes with women's "natural and normal" functioning, and thus constitutes an unnatural intervention in human reproduction.

The problem, of course, is that even if one were to argue (as the Catholic hierarchy in fact still does) that "virtuous" men could use Viagra "only" for reproduction there's the issue of the Church's ban on other forms of "unnatural intervention" like in-vitro and artificial insemnation. Sort of by-definition if a guy can't get a woodie without medication then "nature" has decreed he should do without.

And yet to the very best of my knowledge there is no Church doctrine forbidding its employee insurance plans from covering, or indeed its healthcare facilities from dispensing, Viagra or Cialis.

But I digress...

At the end of the day, neither Viagra or Cialis have created catastrophic baby booms, orgy outbreaks, upticks in divorce, or any of the other bugaboos projected by opponents of contraception. Certainly not among the kind of people willing to become employees of the Church.

Therefore prior evidence suggests that contraception availability will also not produce similar licentiousness.  Nor, as we have seen, above, is contraception any more of an "unnatural intervention" in fertility than is Viagra or Cialis.  Both claims, therefore, are red herrings.  There may be <em>some</em> legitimate reason that conservatives object to giving women control over their own fertility.  But if so they don't seem very comfortable saying it.  Thus the prevarication.

The "Breakdown of Tradition" is Responsible for the Pedophile Priest Scandals, but Not the Way the Church Wants to Spin It.

Thu, 2011-05-19 15:06

Mitchell Landsberg has what I'm pretty sure is a significant tidbit in his article on the Catholic Church's decision to blame the hippies for pedophile priests.

[The report] also found no evidence that homosexuality was to blame. While more boys than girls have been abused, the report said, that is probably because priests had greater access to boys. In fact, it said, the incidence of sexual abuse in the priesthood began declining not long after a noticeable rise in the number of gay men entering Catholic seminaries in the 1970s.

Source: Los Angeles Times

While I can think of a number of possible reasons why an influx of gay men into the Catholic clergy might have made a difference I'm going to take a pass -- others are probably far better qualified, far better informed, and far better experienced with the situation.

Instead I'd like to step back and suggest that contrary to the evident, er, thrust of the Church's decision to blame the "liberal" climate that fostered the sexual revolution (rather than their own shitty management) that same liberal climate may have been an even bigger part of the solution.

At least in the U.S. around the time of Pope John XXIII's revolutionarily liberal Vatican II convention, Catholic families stopped feeling as obliged to pressure a son, daughter to enter the church to become a priest or nun.  With the paradoxical result that while total numbers of celibate priests and nuns declined the proportion of novices, straight or gay, who were willing to intentionally commit to faith and celibacy, as opposed to merely conform to convention (or at least pretend to) went up.

Also, as to the Church's claim that pedophile (ok, ok, and ephebophile) priests became a problem only in the late 20th Century the big determining factor appears to be the "problem" of victims' willingness to come forward. And keep coming forward. Until finally authorities outside the church could no longer ignore it. Church documents going back to the 11th Century suggest the same pattern of internal priests and bishops stepping forward with meticulous documentation, considerable sympathy for victims, and recommendations to expel offending clergy date back at least as far as St. Peter Damian's Liber Gomorrhianus, published in A.D. 1051. So bullshit on that.

The latter regard, and I suspect only in that regard has the "liberalization" of modern society played a role in clerical sex abuse scandals. In which case, yeah, I can see why they continue to fight against it tooth and nail.

Good, Celibate Clergy Being Hard to Recruit it's a Small Wonder the Church Behaves as if it Hates Women

Wed, 2010-08-25 16:01

Julie Sunday of How to Have Sex in Texas has some seriously annoying news

File this under “OMFG.” As reported in the Austin-American Statesman, the “Seton Family of Hospitals,” a Catholic hospital operating organization that runs Brackenridge, Austin’s public, safety-net hospital, is refusing to continue operating a clinic that sees “high risk” pregnant women who need birth control after pregnancy to keep them, you know, alive. Jesus Christmas.

She said it here.

Seriously? These are the same bottled wads who blithely wafted child-sex predators around their system for something on the order of centuries rather than subject them to the discomforts of civil authorities. Yet they’re too sensitive to save women’s lives after they’ve given birth?

Can I just be really, really, really rude and suggest there might be a link between their institutional bias in favor of children and against women? After all, unlike children women can become inconveniently pregnant when sexually manipulated, or abused, or even earnestly and reciprocally loved by members of a nominally-celibate clergy.

Actually that might not even be quite so much rude as gruesomely pragmatic. From an institutional standpoint, and even a historical/document standpoint, the Church has been far, far more procedurally and managerially inconvenienced by ordinary adult heterosexuality than by the proportionately much-smaller inconvenience of pedophilia or homosexuality. Small wonder that, again from an institutional standpoint, they’d hate women. (I’m sure individuals have been positively fond of women they know personally. But over the last fifteen or twenty centuries the accumulated paperwork alone must be tremendous!)

Sigh.

The Other Shoe Drops: Huffington Post on Coverups of Sexual Abuse of Women and Girls in the Catholic Church

Sun, 2010-04-11 21:17

The other day I mentioned my passionate conviction that if there was anything to them (besides being one more front for bashing feminism) then so-called Men’s Rights groups should be taking the lead in calling for investigation, prosecution, exposition, and shaming of the systematic abuse of boys by priests in the Catholic church.

In that post I briefly mentioned that evidence of abuse of women and girls might turn up as well. Sounds like that other shoe has now dropped — on my non-figleaf Facebook account I found the following link from my progressive but also sensibly-religious sister-in-law.

Angela Bonavoglia: The Catholic Church: Abusing, Endangering, And Intimidating Women

It was indeed outrageous that Reverend Raniero Cantalamessa, in his Good Friday homily at St. Peter’s Basilica, with Pope Benedict in eyeshot, compared the public denunciation of the Catholic Church hierarchy for harboring child molesting priests to the homicidal viciousness of anti-Semitism.

But there was another reason to be troubled by that homily: Cantalamessa also talked about the need to end violence against women, which is crucial, but he did so without any acknowledgment of the Church’s own culpability in the abuse, endangerment, and intimidation of women.

Cantalamessa talked about the need to end violence against women, which is crucial, but he did so without any acknowledgment of the Church’s own culpability in the abuse, endangerment, and intimidation of women.

Source: Huffington Post

Bonavoglia goes on to point out that in addition to what amounted to casual disregard for female victims as well as male ones, these are the same people who absolutely condemn birth control, abortion, and use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

If my sister-in-law is ticked off enough to post about this, publicly, on Facebook, then resentment and revulsion has got to be running pretty deep in the rank and file

Pedophilia, Catholic Clergy, and Abdication of Moral Authority

Fri, 2010-03-26 10:38

Yeah, I think it’s time. Echidne of the Snakes asks who…

should listen to the U.S. Catholic bishops as the arbiter of morality.

She said it here.

That these are the guys (and by invocation of their own infallibility clause it’s all guys) who are standing in the way of reproductive rights for women, universal marriage, fertility treatment, and cellular-level medical research, not to mention abstinence even in marriage except for procreation, all on the basis of their own moral authority…

It’s just starting to sink in that it’s not that these would-be emperors have no clothes — there’s room and possibly even need in society for moral religious philosophy and guidance. No, what’s getting me isn’t that they have no clothes at all, it’s that they have no pants!

And just to be clear I’m not saying every male member of the Catholic hierarchy is a pedophile. I am saying, however, that the intersection between public ideology on the one hand and a genuinely, theologically well-intentioned but catastrophic institutional forgiveness of biological reality inside that hierarchy has lead almost inevitably to abetting pedophilia.

Which might have been tolerable were pedophilia a minor flaw like depression, burnout, alcoholism, or even plain old incompatibility with a particular congregation or posting. But in both the most corporeal and the most etherial senses pedophilia simply isn’t the administrative problem the church chose to treat it as, for, evidently, centuries. Instead it’s a direct refutation of nearly all the principles the Church uses to distinguish itself and its clergy from other religions and other denominations. It also directly undermines any and all claims it may ever have had to be an arbiter of morality.

The irony I should be lecturing the Catholic church on morality speaks not so much to my nominal depravity. All my talk about sex and “kink” and so on are actually part and parcel with a fairly strong and reasonably well-informed sense of morality that I’m able to express with some consistency through word and deed both publicly and privately, and so I’m actually not at all depraved. The irony, instead, is that while morality is my hobby it’s supposed to be their job!

That I can now be suspicious (with what I fear to be strong foundation) that the real reason Church leaders permit neither marriage for priests nor ordination of women as priests is out of fear that heterosexual married men and women would neither tolerate nor be tempted by pedophilia… and that I can now be suspicious that the currently embroiled Pope was elevated not despite his history of condoning pedophelia but instead because his history was well-understood within the hierarchy, is probably all that needs to be said about how little moral authority remains with them.

It needn’t be this way. It needn’t have been. But it evidently really, really is.

Yeah, Well We'd Suppress "Sects" That Practiced Child Sacrifice Too

Thu, 2008-04-10 07:30

The AP’s Michelle Roberts, via The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has an update on the recently raided pedophilia/polygamy “compound” in El Dorado, Texas.

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Lawyers for a polygamist sect that is the subject of a massive child-abuse investigation argued in court Wednesday that although its members’ multiple marriages and cloistered ways may be unusual, they have a right to their faith and privacy.

Gerry Goldstein, a San Antonio lawyer representing the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also told a judge that the search of the temple in the sect’s West Texas compound is analogous to a law enforcement search of the Vatican or other holy places.

...

Prosecutor Allison Palmer countered that the purpose in seizing the documents was to uncover evidence of criminal activity, not to malign a religion.

State troopers and child welfare officials began a search of the FLDS compound in Eldorado last Thursday after a 16-year-old girl there called a local family violence shelter to report her 50-year-old husband beat and raped her. The search warrant covered all documents related to marriages among sect members, including photos and entries possibly written in family Bibles.

Rest of the article here.

Look. Here’s the deal. First of all it’s fine with me if people want to practice polygamy. It’s even fine for me if they want to do power-gradient role playing if that’s what floats you and your partner’s and your friend’s boats. Freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of sexual self-determination all demand that I tolerate that whether or not it floats my boat.

But nothing in church doctrine (even, as far as I know, LDS doctrine) dictates that girls under age 18 are obliged to participate. And, sorry, too bad for doctrine if it did. (Which, remember, it doesn’t) Worshipers of the (Biblical version) of Baal might argue their doctrine required live cremation of all first-born children before age three, and claim that their “compound” be treated like the Vatican too. And that would be tough shit for them too.

And just to be clear it wouldn’t be tough shit for child sacrificers because children are God’s little angels. No more than it’s not tough shit for the child molesters in El Dorado because children are holy innocents. It’s because in the 21st Century, in all but the most thoroughly regressive cultures, children are recognized as distinct civil, moral, ethical, and spiritual entities from their parents and therefore children are not their parents to dispose of or consume in ways that subtract from the child’s ability to take up the reins of the world upon reaching adulthood!

As Hannah Arendt said back in Between Past and Future (paraphrasing since my copy is in storage), we can train dogs because we know we’ll be here to train their offspring and their offspring’s offspring as well. With humans, though, we cannot train children. We must instead educate them because we know we will not be there to train their children and certainly not to train their children’s children. And this is the fallacy of all claims (conservative and liberal) that society may have no say in what custodial adults choose to do with their children because they’re only “their” children for 18 years. After that they become our fellow citizens and our children’s fellow future colleagues, partners, friends… or — if their parents have self-indulgently fucked them up enough — they become burdens on ours and our children’s society.

Children grow up. They outlive their parents. And until they’re old enough to give full, informed, and legal adult consent that’s why no matter how religiously, culturally, or socially tolerant we otherwise might be, it’s a problem letting even passionately, sincerely religious adults buy, sell, “marry,” or just slake their pedophilic lust into the bodies of theirs or other people’s children. It’s why the more tolerant our society the less we could tolerate infant sacrifice, no matter how religiously justified. It’s why we can’t tolerate “honor killings.” It’s the real reason why surgical genital alteration on children is intolerable as well. It’s even why we can’t just let these fuckers yank girls out of 5th grade for fear that they might learn enough to get themselves and their own children away from the nightmare cultural-not-religious cycle of female child-sexual and child-labor slavery.

It also happens to be why I call this blog Real Adult Sex. Just in case anyone ever wondered.

—-

Oh, and just for the record, from another AP story on the same “sect” (emphasis mine)

Church leaders have kept a strict hold on every aspect of FLDS life – from the modest prairie-style clothes worn by members, to amount of time their kids stay in school and which house a family calls home.

Marriages, which sometimes have included unions between teenage girls and older men, are arranged through the church’s prophet and leader. Sect dissidents say the rules got even tighter in 2002, when Warren Jeffs took over the church.

Jeffs, now 52, demanded more from followers, asking for steep increases in the 10 percent monthly tithe. Dozens of men were excommunicated. Their wives and children were given to other men deemed more worthy.

Source: Seattle P-I

Sorry, it’s possible for adult men to consent to a system whereby they can be excommunicated for failing to sufficiently obey the whims of their leader. And it’s possible for adult women to consent to a system whereby they obey the same leaders no matter how loathsomely he dehumanizes them. (Do I even need to say that in all cases one would always be ready at the drop of a penny to, um, aggressively support and defend men or women participants’ right to withdraw from their self-imposed agreements at any time.) But neither the men nor the women have the right to consent to the sale or “gift” of their children to anyone else in the course of their role playing. Because, no that it needs saying, children are first and always people.

User login