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

← Nun's sex talk raises the Vatican's ire

Nun's sex talk raises the Vatican's ire - Comments

Lapithes's Avatar Comment 1 by Lapithes

As ever the Roman Catholic Church stands armed with threats of eternal torture to fight the frustrated outbreak of natural love that the multitudes of the world have for their fellow people.

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:52:25 UTC | #945755

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 2 by justinesaracen

One can only hope the contempt she is getting from those old male virgins in dresses will sour her ever more on Catholic dogma as a whole. She is so obviously right and they are so obviously wrong.

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:05:21 UTC | #945758

Daniel Schealler's Avatar Comment 3 by Daniel Schealler

Deep Rifts!™

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:06:15 UTC | #945759

bluebird's Avatar Comment 4 by bluebird

...criticizing the LCWR

Yeah, they were flamed alright. Included in the list of complaints-the women are "paying to much attention to poverty and economic injustice". Bad nuns, bad!

And I thought I couldn't get more angry at the Vatican. You go, girls.

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:13:16 UTC | #945760

Shadow3728's Avatar Comment 5 by Shadow3728

The department says "the Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.

They also can not seem to reconcile that "The Church teaches that pedophilia is a terrible thing but can not seem to find it wrong to conceal it from the authorities after their 'men of God' perpetrate it on young, trusting children.

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:19:08 UTC | #945776

Net's Avatar Comment 6 by Net

Dr Gaillardetz says the Church's leaders fear that essential elements of Catholic identity are being challenged.

I presume that among the essential elements of Catholic Identity are homophobia and misogyny, and you'd have to question why ever they'd want to hold on to those.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:42:53 UTC | #945792

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 7 by drumdaddy

I still want to hear much more about the details of the Vatican corruptions that semi-surfaced regarding the pontiff's valet, who is now being 'held' by church authorities. Most news organizations treated the leak itself as the big scandal while ignoring the corruption. The pope is an utter disgrace to mankind.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:39:22 UTC | #945803

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 8 by Vorlund

Corruption in the vatican! who would have thought it?

Comment 6 by Net :

Dr Gaillardetz says the Church's leaders fear that essential elements of Catholic identity are being challenged.

I presume that among the essential elements of Catholic Identity are homophobia and misogyny, and you'd have to question why ever they'd want to hold on to those.

To which add pederastry, rank arrogance and ignorance.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 06:11:39 UTC | #945811

Zenozzograte's Avatar Comment 9 by Zenozzograte

Comment 2 by esuther : One can only hope the contempt she is getting from those old male virgins in dresses will sour her ever more on Catholic dogma as a whole. She is so obviously right and they are so obviously wrong.

I'd be surprised if there were many virgins among that bunch.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 06:59:49 UTC | #945817

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins

The Vatican is here simply upholding the vile doctrines that their church has always stood for. This was the church, and these were the vile doctrines, that Sister Farlwy bought into when she became a nun. If she disapproves of them, why did she become a nun in the first place? Why doesn't she get out now? Perhaps she has decided she can do the church more damage, and hasten its total destruction more effectively, by attacking from within rather than from outside? In that case I wish her well.

Richard

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:10:17 UTC | #945826

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 11 by Tyler Durden

Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins :

Why doesn't she get out now?

Force of habit?

(gets coat...)

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:18:50 UTC | #945828

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 12 by sunbeamforjeebus

Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins

The Vatican is here simply upholding the vile doctrines that their church has always stood for. This was the church, and these were the vile doctrines, that Sister Farlwy bought into when she became a nun. If she disapproves of them, why did she become a nun in the first place? Why doesn't she get out now? Perhaps she has decided she can do the church more damage, and hasten its total destruction more effectively, by attacking from within rather than from outside? In that case I wish her well.

Richard

Wednesday, 06 June 2012 at 10:10 AM | #945826

We would all wish her well Richard if that were the case.I suspect she is one of many in this vile organisation that hold these views,but she is one of the very very few with the courage to express them.As always this will just blow over and it will be business as usual from tomorrow.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:09:33 UTC | #945835

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 13 by strangebrew

Point of pedantry...

WTF does a NUN know of sexual ethics that includes topics such as gay marriage and masturbation? If there is anyone less suited...would that not be a pope?

If, as Richard suggests, she might actively be working on a 'bend it or break it' mission with regards to the doctrinal garbage the RCC spouts...fair go, but what are the odds that is the plan?

She might well be laying it out in the book as she sees it from a street level angle, methinks that certain facts are easier to come by the nearer to the topic one ventures, much more to do with reality then from a Vatican office resplendent in a self invented pompous old man's ego fuelled morality but really a nun pontificating on sexual ethics...really....you could not make it up!

If the penguin has other goals in mind she would be more at liberty to expose the rotten underbelly of the katolik' delusion from a distance with experience and with evidence..a few documents targeted and liberated has precedence recently, maybe an ethical grey area in itself, but in dealing with such an immoral unethical institution is it not a road justified? that would have deeper repercussions then playing poor injured, put upon, and harassed nun!

I rather suspect she has no intentions of challenging the church, she is and has been a nun, if she finds the strictures to suffocating she has not let it bother her in the past and seems resigned to it now!

I rather suspect the RCC boys club is just kicking a few kittehs' and wimmins' to make themselves feel relevant.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:53:18 UTC | #945844

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 14 by sunbeamforjeebus

Good post above from strangebrew. Can there be anyone less qualified to comment on sexual or marital affairs than a catlick priest or nun? What advice can they offer and upon what pretext? certainly not experience! Well perhaps in advanced masturbatory techniques, but not in marital problems.This is historic as part of their intention to be involved and in control of every aspectand detail of their sheeples' lives!

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:01:42 UTC | #945845

mmurray's Avatar Comment 15 by mmurray

Comment 14 by sunbeamforjeebus :

Good post above from strangebrew. Can there be anyone less qualified to comment on sexual or marital affairs than a catlick priest or nun? What advice can they offer and upon what pretext? certainly not experience! Well perhaps in advanced masturbatory techniques, but not in marital problems.This is historic as part of their intention to be involved and in control of every aspectand detail of their sheeples' lives!

The girls I knew as a teenager said the nuns had a simple explanation of this

"You don't have to play tennis to understand the rules"

Michael

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:12:22 UTC | #945851

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 16 by strangebrew

Comment 15 by mmurray

"You don't have to play tennis to understand the rules"

But sexual ethics is not a game! There are few basics and the majority of the topic relies on subjective and mutual negotiation...there are no rules beyond the ground rules of life that apply to every area of human involvement and relationship and certainly none that a nun would be intimate with in the details!

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:25:51 UTC | #945854

mmurray's Avatar Comment 17 by mmurray

Comment 16 by strangebrew :

Comment 15 by mmurray

"You don't have to play tennis to understand the rules"

But sexual ethics is not a game! There are few basics and the majority of the topic relies on subjective and mutual negotiation...there are no rules beyond the ground rules of life that apply to every area of human involvement and relationship and certainly none that a nun would be intimate with in the details!

I was just giving the Catholic answer. Not suggesting I agree with it.

Back on the OP uppity nuns are not that unusual. Our local saint Mary McKillop was excommunicated for awhile.

Michael

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:11:07 UTC | #945862

mmurray's Avatar Comment 18 by mmurray

Comment 12 by sunbeamforjeebus :

We would all wish her well Richard if that were the case.I suspect she is one of many in this vile organisation that hold these views,but she is one of the very very few with the courage to express them.As always this will just blow over and it will be business as usual from tomorrow.

But business as usual is mostly irrelevant. The vast majority of Catholics with two kids made up their mind about contraception years ago and just ignore the papal decrees. They've voted with their ... well not feet.

Michael

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:59:07 UTC | #945867

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 19 by strangebrew

Comment 17 by mmurray

I was just giving the Catholic answer. Not suggesting I agree with it.

Oh absolutely, I was not suggesting that was your POV, but holing the theist barge before it evolved into an ark of ignorance.

As for Mary...more an embarrassment for the ' crows' then a boast methinks! Possibly played the 'She ain't a bug more of a feature' gambit on that one! When trying to hide summat...best to put it in plain view!

The insinuation in the pro katolik' leaning media at the time was all about kiddie fiddling and her integrity in revealing it, apparently that is codswollop, it was more to do with her insubordination and bruising a male crow's ego...it was a secondary affair to the kiddie fiddling fiasco!

But the taste of it remains rather bitter and false.and the katoliks' seem happy enough not explaining the reasons to deeply just yapping on about her extremely doubtful miracles in curing leukaemia and inoperable lung and secondary brain cancer...yeah right...fucking insulting bullshite!

Yet so holy was she that she spent her last years in a wheel chair...god really loved that one!

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:04:59 UTC | #945869

Roedy's Avatar Comment 20 by Roedy

The pope think he has the right to impose his whacko doctrines on everyone, not just Catholics.

It is as though he had a campaign to make drinking sacramental wine mandatory.

I heard four elderly Baptists saying that the state should persecute gays because the bible says to. Again they are trying to force their religious superstitions on others. The religious beliefs of a sect have no business being imposed on non-believers.

They make no bones that their reasons are purely religious.

Perhaps fighting fire with fire is needed. Attempt to force some odious religious practice from one sect of Christians on others so they get the principle.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:32:31 UTC | #945874

All About Meme's Avatar Comment 21 by All About Meme

Comment 11 by Tyler Durden

Force of habit?

FTW !!!

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:52:30 UTC | #945876

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 22 by Rosbif

I started to think that not all catholics are that bad but in fact she doesn't agree with catholic doctrine. So she isn't a catholic?

In fact she follows just 1 of the billion or so different Xtian religions where you can believe in the bits you like and ignore the things you don't and even ignore that all the others choose different bits; it's just 1 of the several billion religions where poeple look at the sky a lot and marvel that the supreme super power of the universe has morals just like theirs.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:14:03 UTC | #945897

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 23 by Schrodinger's Cat

Nun. Who'd want a job where the job title describes how much sex you are allowed.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:11:19 UTC | #945917

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 24 by Sean_W

Dr Gaillardetz says the Church's leaders fear that essential elements of Catholic identity are being challenged.

That's true. But it's equally true for other people that foolishly tied their identities to bigotry, and it is your bigotry that's being singled out and attacked.

Our respect for Catholic people should in no way lesson our condemnation of their bigotry towards gays, or women. Nor should it interfere with our efforts to relieve them of their hatred for everything non-Catholic.

the Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:27:27 UTC | #945919

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 25 by Mr DArcy

At some point the bigwigs in the Vatican will realise that they no longer have control over the sexual (or other) behaviour of the general population, the behaviour of their adherents, nor indeed the behaviour of their own clergy. When most Catholics in the more advanced countries just ignore the Vatican's instructions on contraception, - trouble is definitely brewing!

As Feynman put it: when theory meets reality, reality always wins. Holy Joe can pontificate all he wants, but certainly in western Europe and the USA, his instructions are widely ignored. It seems that "advanced" Catholics, still believe in the Holy Ghost, but not in the Vatican bureaucrats as the middle men!

Maybe the RCC needs a few sophisticated theologians to sort the matter out?

Dinesh, where are you? And maybe Wild Bill O' Donahue can help out? William Lane Craig? (Oooops sorry, wrong sect!)

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:55:10 UTC | #945928

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 26 by aquilacane

Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins

The Vatican is here simply upholding the vile doctrines that their church has always stood for. This was the church, and these were the vile doctrines, that Sister Farlwy bought into when she became a nun. If she disapproves of them, why did she become a nun in the first place? Why doesn't she get out now? Perhaps she has decided she can do the church more damage, and hasten its total destruction more effectively, by attacking from within rather than from outside? In that case I wish her well.

Richard

Wiki puts it like this:

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:14:00 UTC | #945930

Sharpur's Avatar Comment 27 by Sharpur

Comment 5 by Shadow3728 :

The department says "the Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.

And how, exactly, can you have 'respect' for persons while condemning the 'behaviour' and 'unions' that arise from and define their identity? I guess it's the old christian argument of 'you can be gay so long as you're ashamed, celibate and miserable'. I enjoy the theists holding on to this position, because it's totally indefensible and so makes them look ridiculous. They don't dare express their bible-inspired "It is abomination...they shall be put to death" line (for the most part), But's it's beyond them to leave it alone as 'consenting adults in private none of our business' either. Hence this ridiculous balancing act of pretending to respect people while despising what they do.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:31:50 UTC | #945938

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 28 by Ignorant Amos

A drunk man who smelled like beer sat down on a subway next to a priest. The man's tie was stained, his face was plastered with red lipstick, and a half-empty bottle of gin was sticking out of his torn coat pocket.

He opened his newspaper and began reading.

After a few minutes the man turned to the priest and asked, 'Say Father, what causes arthritis?'

The priest replies, 'My Son, it's caused by loose living, being with cheap, wicked women, too much alcohol, contempt for your fellow man, sleeping around with prostitutes and lack of a bath.'

The drunk muttered in response, 'Well, I'll be darned,' then returned to his paper.

The priest, thinking about what he had said, nudged the man and apologized. 'I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to come on so strong.

How long have you had arthritis?'

The drunk answered, 'I don't have it, Father. I was just reading here that the Pope does.'

MORAL: Make sure you understand the question before offering the answer.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:01:39 UTC | #945943

Corylus's Avatar Comment 29 by Corylus

Some more detail on what she actually said here...

... it is surely the case that many women have found great good in self-pleasuring—perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure—something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers. In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them.

Needless to say this speculation caused particular ire ...

The Vatican handily disagrees on both points, and said so in the notification sent to Sister Farley. “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose... "

The interesting thing is that this one "rang a bell" with me (no sniggering in the back please, children) in that I did remember reading about a study on this. After some googling (and later furtive clearing of internet history) I track down the reference. Apparently Thomsen and Chang, 2000 found a history of masturbation is a very significant predictor indeed of later female orgasm ... when one manages to have company, as it were. So it looks like Sister Farley's instincts - and the science - trump the 'fruits of a lifetime of scholarship' that the Vatican priests have to offer.

Incidentally, I would not site her sexual history as evidence against her theories. Firstly, because I don't know for sure what this is; secondly because there is a history of books on sexuality written by the non-engaged (Marie Stopes wrote the informative Married Love while still a virgin); thirdly, because there is no direct logical link between 'experienced in' and 'correct about'; fourthly because there is a very real possibility that the hideous lack that many clerics seem to demonstrate when talking about sexuality is not lack of experience but instead lack of compassion, and fifthly because it really is absolutely none of my beeswax.

All I will say is that if she has managed to demonstrate both care about and a desire for those who experience things that she cannot to nevertheless enjoy themselves ... well ... then this shows a laudable lack of jealously and true generosity.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:21:58 UTC | #945951

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 30 by ZenDruid

Comment 10 by Richard Dawkins :

The Vatican is here simply upholding the vile doctrines that their church has always stood for. This was the church, and these were the vile doctrines, that Sister Farlwy bought into when she became a nun. If she disapproves of them, why did she become a nun in the first place? Why doesn't she get out now? Perhaps she has decided she can do the church more damage, and hasten its total destruction more effectively, by attacking from within rather than from outside? In that case I wish her well.

Richard

I'm assuming here that Margaret Farley was inculcated since birth, and chose her vocation as the best option available to her. That doesn't mean she understood then what she understands now. She has become a humanist at some point under the prevailing dogma. I see no hypocrisy here.

That being said, I wish her well as well.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:54:35 UTC | #945956