h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Any thoughts on this little letter that was published today?

First, a link to the text: http://www.vis.pcn.net/doc/040731x_en.htm


Now some news stories:

"Vatican fears blurring line between men and women" http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/31/vaticam_040731.html

"A woman's place is to wait and listen, says the Vatican" http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1273859,00.html

"Powerful Vatican document counters feminist ideology" http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=31200

"Vatican Letter Denounces 'Lethal Effects' of Feminism" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30761-2004Jul31.html

"Men and women: love and peace, not war" http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1224



Do you suppose any of us have any opinions on this one? Do I dare throw it into "Ask H2G2"?

Hi Anhaga, I've just drifted in from Info - somewhat intrigued by the subject line.

I tried to read Cardinal Ratty's screed, but I got as far as, 'The Church, expert in humanity...' before I went the giggle. I can't take the rest of it seriously. Maybe I'll try again later.

This prbably isn't the sort of considered commentary you'd be hoping for. As I say, I'll try again later...

Ivan.

Hi, Ivan:

Actually, I haven't got much further than you yet.

Like so much reactionary crap I come across, Ratzinger has made up from whole cloth a fictional ideology, labelled it with a term descriptive of people who have never espoused that ideology, and so tarred a whole lot of innocent people with a very nasty brush. It's the same strategy that labels aboriginal people "lazy", Jewish people "avaricious", Muslims "terrorists" and Christians "Crusaders" (clearly, Cardinal Ratzinger wants the last to be true). Frankly, I class Ratzinger's letter as hate propaganda, simply on the basis of "The Question".

I will press on, however.

Speaking as a person who is quite content to be known as a feminist, at first I felt like the Vatican had quite nastily declared me an enemy. But after reading the Cardinal's description of "feminism", I feel little else than perplexed. It's sort of like if the Vatican suddenly declared war on Canada and then went on to explain that Canada is that nasty country in South America somewhere south of the 49th parallel where they all speak Swahili and Urdu. As a Canadian, I wouldn't feel to worried about Vatican troops goose-stepping down my street, but I would worry about obedient Catholics having a bad opinion of me. (Okay, I wouldn't feel that worried since Canadian Catholics, particularly the Bishops, are regularly reprimanded by the Holy See for their lack of obedience) But what will obedient Catholics think of people who call themselves "feminists"? Okay, I admit, it won't have a big effect in my part of the world or in most of the "developed" world. I suspect the letter is designed to stifle progress within the Catholic church, which I find a sad prospect.

Hi Anhaga.

I can't honestly say I read the whole thing, but it seemed pretty par for the course to me. Catholic theologians have to argue from scripture and theology - from the passages of the Bible Ratzinger uses, he derives a fairly traditional message of men and women having divinely ordained roles which are x-y-z etc. etc. Well, that's what the Bible says and even when it's not saying it, it's implicitly 'there' throughout: many churches manage to keep up with more modern ideologies only by overlooking the relevant bits of the Bible and chucking the Fathers of the Church in the bin, whereas the Catholics don't flinch and do stick to the reasoning, in the way that their best theologians always have (most organisations, it should be said, are free from the obligation of ensuring that what they say doesn't contradict what was said on the same subject 1500 years previously). In other words, I may not care one bit for the conclusions, but the logic is pretty flawless. So I can't really see it as 'hate propaganda' because it's merely restating what is already there.

As an atheist, I, of course, don't give a monkey's. But I have to say I've always found more to admire in the way the Catholic Church refuses to budge one inch, than in the way other churches simply fudge the issue.

I was very interested in this, though:

"The Vatican's sights are trained in particular on the view that while people's sex is anatomically determined their gender identity and roles are entirely a product of conditioning. In a letter to bishops on the participation of men and women in the church and the world, the Pope's chief theological spokesman, the German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stresses, as the pontiff has done on several occasions, that the book of Genesis is unambiguous on this point"

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1273102,00.html)

Judith Butler, whose book 'Performing Gender' is generally regarded as the classic modern statement of how gender 'roles are entirely a product of conditioning', must be incredibly flattered (really - she seems to me to be the direct target there). Maybe that's a positive side to this: if the Catholic Church feels stirred to respond to it, Feminist thinking must be doing something right at present (i.e. at a time when the mass media is proclaiming an era of 'post-feminism', whatever that means).

The point at the end is solid though: "the book of Genesis is unambiguous on this point" No arguing with that.

I agree that the theological logic is just fine. It's the fake, simplistic, and self-serving definition of what "feminism" means that bugs me and that I would throw in with other hate propaganda. It's all well and good to say "my scripture says that this is the way the world works" but to begin by saying "these people are enemies of my faith because I say they believe something (that they've never claimed to believe)" is something quite different.

I really don't give a monkey's either, except from the passing a car wreck and can't help but look point of view.

>>these people are enemies of my faith because I say they believe something (that they've never claimed to believe)<<

Ah well, that too is a traditional theological tactic. In the fifth century, North Africa was full of 'heretics' wandering around saying: "But I never *said* that!"

I don't know about sticking this on 'Ask' - "Does anyone else find the misogynistic tendencies of Genesis as recently outlined by Cardinal Ratzinger disturbing?"

But rather as with lovers of Tolkien dismissing out of hand anything they wouldn't like to think was in there, I think this is a big problem for a lot of believers, who may be feminists on the one hand, committed Christians on the other, who have pretty much to try to forget big chunks of the Bible to reconcile those two things as a result.

Also, with regard to what you said about this not having too much impact in the western world generally: something else caught my eye in the Guardian piece:

"According to the leaked extract in the German tabloid Bild Zeitung, his letter to bishops calls on governments to "create conditions that enable women not to neglect their family duties when they enter into a job"."

So the Catholic hierarchy in, say, Britain, can pick this up and say "Actually, what the Pope is calling for is extended maternity leave and so on; he's actually looking for a better deal for working mothers." Sneaky

It is yet another example of the Catholic Church's ability to say absolutely nothing as unitelligibly and with as many obscure words as possible. That way, if asked about something, they can say "Well, as Pope JPII said in his letter to Blah-blah-blah, you can clearly see that the church's position is...." and then just repeat the unitelligible nonsense....

Basically, the Catholic relies on a series of strategies to pull the wool over the parishoners.

1. nonsensical contradiction: eg; While your marriage is deemed not to have taken place, according to the sacrements of the Catholic church, your children are not illegitimate because you were married...

"Q. What is the status of children of a marriage after a Church annulment or dissolution?
A. Children become and remain legitimate when or because a wedding ceremony has taken place. They can never lose that legitimacy even after an annulment or dissolution. No one can use a Church annulment or dissolution to claim he or she no longer has parental relationship with, or obligation toward, the children."

You weren't married, but you were married... WHAAAA????

2. bafflegab: eg; Well you read a perfect example....

3. the "Daddy" method.... "Why? Because I said so."

4.a. the "excommunication" method: If you can't answer the question, they are a heretic, and you simply dismiss them.

4.b. the "threat of excommunication" method. Effective stop-gap method and useful as a pre-emptive strategy. Quite often as effective as the excommunication method, but ensures that financial contributions to the Church aren't compromised, and useful as a warning to others.

I think I'll not put it into Ask H2G2.



Mudhooks:

I'm not sure that the letter is as unintelligible as you suggest. It bears little relation to the real world we all share, but it does have an internal consistency. And, I suspect, it will be applied by real-world bishops to real-world situations as those bishops see fit, as Trin has suggested.


Just for interest's sake, here's Cardinal Ambrozic of Canada in 1999, in the presence of Ratzinger:

'In addressing the implications of feminism for Catholic thought, Cardinal Ambrozic asserted that “women could not find an ally more clearly determined than the Church to recognize and defend their dignity.” The universal call to holiness is addressed to women and men equally, and has primacy “over every structure and every distinction in the Church of Christ.”'

http://www.cccb.ca/MediaReleases.htm?CD=185&ID=697

Kind of sounds like at least one Canadian Cardinal is a closet feminist (as far as he can be given his position in the structure of and his distinction in the Church.)

I saw the Guardian article yesterday and was just about to post it on Ask when I re-read the bit that Trin quoted.

"According to the leaked extract in the German tabloid Bild Zeitung, his letter to bishops calls on governments to "create conditions that enable women not to neglect their family duties when they enter into a job"."

Yes, sneaky, and it also made the article wishy-washy (imo). But perhaps I could post some of those other links, anhaga!


* s to read them.*

az

"I saw the Guardian article yesterday and was just about to post it on Ask"



As long as it isn't me.

yes indeed, you've caused enough trouble with your controversial, pot-stirring, politically-correct, revisionist views about Tolkien!





Mooses in LOTR, why the very idea!

There ya go:

F19585?thread=456025&post=5643940#p5643940




az

I'd never heard fo this Ratzinger but I did hear this article referenced on the radio somewhere today, I think. Now I know what they were talking about and am just as happy I turned it off. These things just p**s me off too much, when really why should I give a monkey's either? The thought that some people actually do pay attention to these perhaps should disturb me maybe. And it does but its useless for me to dwell on it I find.

I'm sure you'll just love this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3527184.stm
Apparently women doctors are weaking medicine!

I had the strangest dream last night that I posted on this thread.

Do you mean that you posted your strange dream?

Maybe it was az's thread on the same subject over in Ask H2G2.

*Somwhere* last night in this vast field of digital drama, analog analogies, and Cosmic comedy I ranted about the Catholic church.

Oh well.

As Roseanne Roseannadana would say: *Nevermind*.

"weakening medicine"

The logic escapes me.... The medical profession is becoming a "female profession". The medical profession is losing clout. Therefore, it is women who are "causing" it to lose clout. Therefore, we should discourage women from going into medicine.....

If doctors are paid less, and so men aren't willing to work for the kind of money women generally end up getting, perhaps it is time to look at paying doctors more.

If the profession is losing prestige, perhaps it is that the public is tired of pompous male doctors who are now, thankfully, leaving the profession. Perhaps the female doctors are more intuitive and more able to understand people....

I never understand the logic that some people use to come to conclusions. How on earth did this woman get through school, let alone become a professor? Actually, knowing some of the people I do who are PhDs, it isn't any wonder. Logic isn't necessarily their strong point.

Someone needs to point out to this woman that this is the same sort of attitude that made secretarial work a menial job, millwork and telephone operating a "female job". History is full of examples of professions being highly paid and often prestigous until women made their entree into them. Once women make up a good portion of the profession, somehow the work is deemed to be less difficult or requiring less brains or less effort, and the pay goes down. Men leave the profession and blame the women.

The fact is, that women are as capable and as able as men to do pretty well any job.

Oh. I missed this. My response to the President of the Royal College of Physicians is: If the profession is losing clout, you're not doing your job. Don't blame it on women. And if women aren't able to rise to the hightest levels of the medical profession because they want to have families (we all know that men never want to have families and are forced at gunpoint into fatherhood) how the hell did you, a woman, get to be the top doctor in the country?

It's just stupid talk.