This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The New Inquisition – the Roman Catholic Man Cult’s modern War on Women

The New Inquisition – the Roman Catholic Man Cult’s modern War on Women - Comments

Archon's Avatar Comment 1 by Archon

I not only completely agree with this, I see the effects of it in modern day life. Men and women brought up with this type of background (myself included, though I'm trying to educate myself out of it) tend to see women as property now. For a heterosexual man, his partner is a prize, listed there along with his house and his car as a symbol of status. Songs talk about having money, popularity, and women, as though they are to be collected.

But at the same time, I can just predict the comments from offended male readers on here, saying that this is sexist against them, and how it wouldn't be okay if they wrote about women this way, due to the reference to businesses and governments doing better with women in charge. I assume that if an omniscient God existed and was choosing who would run "His" church, he would know that the smartest option would be to have some male and some female authority figures; not to segregate them, one over the other, based on imagined abilities. We are the same species, after all!

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:31:56 UTC | #566324

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 2 by Philoctetes

Let me; as a male reader, distance myself from any association with a "Sexist" argument. I have more in common with a cliched feminist icon than I have with the misogynists of the RCC. Furthermore I resent the implicit suggestion that I might have anything in common with the RCC other than my gender. I've never wanted to torture, burn someone alive, deny women rights over their body or bugger a young boy. What actually baffles me is that there are any women (or gays) at all in the RCC flock . The RCC is male, it is bad, ergo all males are bad? - Rubbish! Not all males are potential rapists though I suspect there are more of this ilk inside the RCC than outside it. The villain of the piece is not males, it is the males within the RCC. Sweeping generalisations are unhelpful if not downright dangerous but I suspect there are even a few decent specimens even in the RCC. Speaking from a good knowledge of history, I think this is a very fair and accurate article.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:21:33 UTC | #566346

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 3 by mirandaceleste

The effectiveness of the argument being presented here is negatively impacted by many punctuation errors and a great deal of confusing and choppy syntax.

Also, in places, the tone/style is much too casual, there are unsupported assumptions that border on conspiracy theory (i.e. "Then the church crackdown in reaction to the advent of modernity began at the same time that professional medical cliques joined the effort to crackdown on women controlling their reproduction. Contraceptives were also tightly controlled or banned. Why? Doctors make much more money from full pregnancies than early term abortions, which were then often performed by the midwives that doctors wanted to eliminate as competition."), and some of the assertions are quite confusing and irrelevant/pointless (i.e. "If there is evidence that the Christian God if one exists is an idiot beyond that provided by the death of billions of children, then his putting men in charge of his church is it.")

The above-mentioned issues really do take away from the argument's effectiveness, and that's a shame, as it is an important argument that deserves (and demands) a very rigorous and precise presentation.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:04:07 UTC | #566355

ChaddLawrence's Avatar Comment 4 by ChaddLawrence

Hey guys, isn't it unfortunate when people who hold to a certain worldview act in contradiction to it and all of a sudden they become the standard by which it's judged? I think it's too bad when people reach a conclusion about something because of what they observe instead of going to the source. It seems unfair to judge a philosophy based on it's abuse. When that happens you really have to wonder if we look at things from the angle we ought to. What do you think?

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:05:56 UTC | #566356

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 5 by mirandaceleste

Comment 4 by ChaddLawrence :

Hey guys, isn't it unfortunate when people who hold to a certain worldview act in contradiction to it and all of a sudden they become the standard by which it's judged? I think it's too bad when people reach a conclusion about something because of what they observe instead of going to the source. It seems unfair to judge a philosophy based on it's abuse. When that happens you really have to wonder if we look at things from the angle we ought to. What do you think?

Let me guess- you're a Catholic apologist who is playing the "No true Scotsman" card?

But we shouldn't have to guess at what you're getting at here. If you have a point to make, then make it.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:12:13 UTC | #566358

Radesq's Avatar Comment 6 by Radesq

@Comments 3&5 by mirandaceleste

I agree - post it again after you are done editing Mr. Paul (that may come off as taking a shot, but it is meant with sincerity and with good intention). You're not really going to publish "What with all the crap men have given women over the millennia one would think...." I hope. I followed some of your links in the article and found that your writing is much more structured than this abstract (and contains citations) so I assume this is only a draft. Again, sorry if I am offending...but that's what I think.

And also in agreement with calling on ChaddLawrence to say what you mean specifically - that paragraph is opaque to me. I don't want to have to guess at what you are generally driving at. Are you saying that the author is misjudging Catholics by focusing on a few bad apples throughout history who don't live up to the otherwise laudable ideals of the Church?

I think that's what you're trying to say - but I am not sure because you appear to be tiptoeing around it.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:47:33 UTC | #566363

ilavenil's Avatar Comment 7 by ilavenil

Please don't refer to women as "they."

"You see, women do suffer from a serious flaw, one that causes them to abort pregnancies in great numbers. They are human beings like the rest of us."

While this would be very effective if your main audience were misogynists who think of women as a different (lower) species, it's vague otherwise and I would recommend editing the article with more inclusive language.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:27:57 UTC | #566381

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 8 by xmaseveeve

Comment 7,

Please don't refer to women as "they."

Why not?

I don't see the problem with 'they'. Which pronoun would you use? (Obviously, women would say 'we', but I mean if you were a man.) It's not 'vague', as the word 'women' was the subject of the previous sentence. Am I missing something?

This is obviously a first draft, and has a fair way to go, but it is passionate and well argued, and definitely worth continuing. Now write it, and don't give up.

Well done for being man enough to be a feminist!

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:37:33 UTC | #566406

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 9 by Peter Grant

Great article! So when are we gonna get around to arresting the Pope for crimes against humanity?

Perhaps this is another job for the A-Team. :)

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:16:43 UTC | #566417

ridelo's Avatar Comment 10 by ridelo

Quote: An all out war, the notorious Albigensian Crusade, was waged against the Cathars. During one siege the crusader leader had the eyes, noses and lips of 100 prisoners removed before they were sent back, lead by a prisoner with one eye left.

Quote from Isaac Asimov’s Book of Facts, page 225:

Basil II of Constantinople in 1014 decided to end once and for all a war that had already lasted forty years. To break the spirit of the hated Bulgarians, he blinded all but 150 of 15,000 prisoners. The “lucky” 150 were blinded in one eye only. Every 100 blind men were guided by a one-eyed leader back to the BULGARIAN CAPITAL OF OHRID, whose ruler, Samuel , had received word that his army was returning to him. Samuel hastened to meet his men and found himself staring at thousand of helpless blind men. The sight was fatal. Samuel suffered a stroke on the spot and died two days later.(Basil II received the surname Bulgaroktonos, meaning “slayer of Bulgarians”,)

Coincidence or somebody making things up?

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:12:03 UTC | #566440

hiss's Avatar Comment 11 by hiss

Please, please, please proof read this and edit it.

You have raised some great arguments but many people will be reluctant to take them seriously - or even read beyond the first few paragraphs - when a piece is as clumsy as this.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:53:30 UTC | #566464

rookieatheist's Avatar Comment 12 by rookieatheist

Comment 11 by hiss :

Please, please, please proof read this and edit it.

You have raised some great arguments but many people will be reluctant to take them seriously - or even read beyond the first few paragraphs - when a piece is as clumsy as this.

Yes, also way too much info just blurted out. This type of knowledge is too condensed and is way too much information for newbies to the subject and this book should be aimed at newbies. The reader needs to be led by the hand and guided slowly through each step of the argument.

If you're gonna be presenting extracts from the book, maybe it would be better to present one chapter instead of presenting paragraphs that have been copied and pasted from various chapters? (which is the impression I have of this piece)

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:22:32 UTC | #566486

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 13 by AtheistEgbert

I'm afraid the language is more political than historical. Are we blaming men or blaming religion? It seems to me that men are as much victims of religion as women, albeit women are mostly excluded from positions of power in monotheistic religions.

Is the tone of the book aimed to educate believers or reinforce the perceptions of feminists and atheists? Because I think the language would put most people off, it simply comes across as overly tabloid journalism (sorry) than scholarly. While this language might be better served in making rallying speeches, I'm afraid it doesn't sit well within book form.

Again, I apologise for being so blunt, but I hope you see this as constructive criticism.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:34:58 UTC | #566499

CarolineMary's Avatar Comment 14 by CarolineMary

And people sometimes wonder why I'm not a catholic anymore.

I don't like abortion, but it should be legal. Which ensures that it is safe and increases the chance of doing it early which I believe is better for the health of the woman.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:48:35 UTC | #566509

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 15 by Alan4discussion

Early Christianity & the Gospel of Mary

This astonishingly brief narrative presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is-a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers a sharp critique of illegitimate power and a utopian vision of spiritual perfection; it challenges our rather romantic views about the harmony and unanimity of the first Christians; and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority. All written in the name of a woman.

All in the name of the woman who could have been the first POPE!

The Gospel of Mary is about inter-Christian controversies, the reliability of the disciples’ witness, the validity of teachings given to the disciples through post-resurrection revelation and vision, and the leadership of women” (De Boer 2004). (Wiki)

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:28:01 UTC | #566580

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 16 by AsylumWarden

I'm afraid the language is more political than historical. Are we blaming men or blaming religion? It seems to me that men are as much victims of religion as women, albeit women are mostly excluded from positions of power in monotheistic religions.

I seemed to read it as 'Men of the Catholic church' are the villains of the piece, but yes, I can see why it may not come across that way.

I think the ban on contraception/sex outside marriage is a means to control men as well: "You can't have sex unless we say so or we kill you!" It doesn't say men may have sex outside of marriage but women can't (unless of course, you're a member of the clergy in which case unconsenting homosexual sex outside of... yeah, I think we all know this one).

Basically: To have sex, you must be married and to be married you must be ordained in our church and hence believe exactly what we tell you to believe. Men and women alike, it was a means of exerting power.

A bit like the faith schools of the today, I'm sure back then there were many people in the congregations who didn't really believe, they just said they did for an easy life (as opposed to, in the times of the inquisition, an early death!)

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:56:14 UTC | #566597

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 17 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 3 by mirandaceleste :

The effectiveness of the argument being presented here is negatively impacted by many punctuation errors and a great deal of confusing and choppy syntax.

I'm not even sure it is even a good argument. It reads like a rant, or the first draft of a Pat Condell video.

Published as a book? I hope not!

I'm not against the idea of a properly researcher history of medieval Europe attributing blame, and wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it was pinned on the Catholic Church, but this work is not it.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:20:19 UTC | #566610

Logicel's Avatar Comment 18 by Logicel

This angle being sloppily applied here could be honed into a nice, shining, smooth hook ripping right into the heap of encrusted merde that is Catholicism. This author has done interesting work and can pull this off. Robertson did it in The Case of the Pope. Let the facts lead into the use of sharp language, not the other way around.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:24:02 UTC | #566693

paul fauvet's Avatar Comment 19 by paul fauvet

This won't do. The author seems to think that everything was fine in the ancient world before Constantine converted to christianity.

So we have the claim that "the Greco-Roman concepts of democracy were long forgotten as pagan deceits". In reality, ancient democracy was restricted to Athens and a few of its satellites, and flourished for at most 150 years in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. It was finally destroyed, not by any Christian, but by Alexander the Great.

Nor was it a democracy that we would recognise, since the great majority of the population (women, slaves and freed slaves) had no right to vote.

"Greco-Roman" is a slight of hand - at no time could the Roman Republic, much less the Roman Empire ever have been described as democratic, even in the Athenian sense.

Then we have the reference to "the militaristic and murderous Constantine", as if the pagan emperors who preceded him were not militaristic and murderous. Those emperors included Tiberius, Caligula and Nero, who are not normally regarded as paragons of virtue. Since the Roman Empire was essentially a military dictatorship, even the relatively humane and intellectual emperors, such as Marcus Aurelius, spent much of their time waging war.

The author's main point - about the hatred of women that suffuses the catholic church - is certainly correct, but the case is weakened by idealising the Roman Empire before Constantine.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:42:54 UTC | #566969

erindorothy's Avatar Comment 20 by erindorothy

The church's rather ridiculous stories about a nosey sky daddy were some of the first things I questioned - but beyond a doubt, it was the misogyny that really made me flee the church.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:16:39 UTC | #567009

Stephen of Wimbledon's Avatar Comment 21 by Stephen of Wimbledon

I agree with mirandaceleste Comment 3, this piece needs a lot of work - though the introduction does say that it is from a work in progress.

Let's hope that the finished book is a more polished and balanced work. I fervently hope so because this is a very important subject.

In a recent interview Christopher Hitchens pointed out that we now know how to defeat poverty. The emancipation of women is the route to richer, more stable, societies.

Attacking the Catholic Church for its history of emphatic repression of women and their misogyny in continuing to seek women's subjection is a very worthy cause.

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:39:18 UTC | #567828

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 22 by rod-the-farmer

I think part of the goal to keep women pregnant is to make sure they don't get an education where they might learn how to control their own fertility. Is there anyone with direct knowledge who can point to a catholic-funded university which offers scholarships etc. to female engineers or other professions ? I mean, as opposed to those just for men ?

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:28:15 UTC | #568081

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 23 by justinesaracen

There are a lot of good points here, but they are awash in vague, amateurish writing, with no dates, no specific references and a stream of generalizations. If this is going to be a published book, it will need a LOT of editing.

Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:20:31 UTC | #568974

eccles's Avatar Comment 24 by eccles

Mr. Paul, I'm glad you brought up that despicable business about Sr. McBride. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/olmsted-threatens-smackdown-on-catholic-abortion-hospital/

I have been posting my thoughts there as a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting but typical how much support Olmsted has had. I refuse to address him is "Bishop" as I do also to anyone who was ordained or Consecrated by the Heretical Roman Catholic Church since the Vatican Second Council and the new "rules" made in 1969. Of course the brainwashed "Faithfull" have given me a hard time. Problem is that they can't handle the truth I tell them about the origin of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and how the Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written. I suppose these "sheeple" are too far gone - too brain-poisoned by Religion as Christopher Hitchens wrote.

Could one expect any different in the United Christian States of America. My comments there are under my real name, Robert Tobin

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 06:14:26 UTC | #570005

grist's Avatar Comment 25 by grist

The writer is clearly seriously deluded about his intellectual ability and has no understanding of the norms of academic writing if he thinks that this unresearched, unstructured, unreferenced (and fundamentally untrue) stream of nonsense contains anything remotely resembling the makings of a "book". No serious publisher would touch it. There are plenty of well-writen and objective histories of the Catholic Church avaialable - what will this offer to the debate?

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:25:22 UTC | #570183

grist's Avatar Comment 26 by grist

This is obviously not the first time that Mr Gregory Paul has been challenged for a complete lack of academic rigour, see : http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25. He is obviously totally ignorant about matters of religion so maybe he should just be upfront about his splenetic hatred of the church rather than trying to give it a veneer of respectability by wrapping it up in a bogus intellectualism.

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:34:00 UTC | #570611

neil pharr's Avatar Comment 27 by neil pharr

It is great to point out the dark side of religion, but we must be careful when addressing the issue of abortion. The Athiest community has higher moral standards than those mired in dogma, but we should tread lighly on the issue of abortion. Science does not know all. Is there any reason why a fetus should not be accepted into our society?

In India there is a secular campaign against the great genocide of females there due to feticide, dowry murder, etc. 50 Million are missing from the Indian population. (see 50Millionmissing on net). Women rights activists are hindered by the pro-abortion sentiment among progressive women. This is one example of how views on abortion can affect true social change and the social equality of women.

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:54:35 UTC | #570772

kriton's Avatar Comment 28 by kriton

When trying to write a book like this, it's a good idea to check out what's already available on the market. No point in writing something that others have already done better. And inspiration on how to write is always useful.

Perhaps these titles could be of interest:

The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe

Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World by Michael J. Gorman

Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity by Elaine Pagels

Maybe other readers could suggest some other titles? I would be interested to hear about them, too.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:11:17 UTC | #571838

Veronique's Avatar Comment 29 by Veronique

I don't understand what neil pharr, Comment 27. is on about. Tread carefully when addressing the issue of abortion? WTF?

You appear to be living in some deluded hiatus dream. Pregnancy is a condition borne by women. That's it! If women want to abort an embryo or a foetus, then that is a choice they can make either with partners or on their own recognizance.

Tread lightly? Tread lightly on what? The atheist community doesn't have higher moral standards, it has moral standards; the rest have fear of divine retribution. There is no comparison. And there is a global population explosion with religious reins on contraception and abortion. Apart from a finite planet and its resources.

So India has a replacement problem does it? Probably due to female education and an appreciation that money is needed to keep babies alive and give the surviving kiddies an education. Great. India needs that.

Get off the grass neil - abortion/contraception is an issue that needs more than just 'addressing'. It will contribute massively to our tenure as the shortest lived species on this planet unless women take theor reproductive capacities in hand by themselves WITHOUT dogma.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:54:11 UTC | #571959

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 30 by Vorlund

Montsegur was not taken by storm it fell due to attrition. If you get chance to go and see this place in France take it! Formidable is an understatement.

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:18:09 UTC | #577928