The imperfect storm
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | January 9, 2008 |
| Vol. 5, No. 18 |
There are two winds blowing around the globe. The first, fundamentalism, brings with it the guarantee of absolutism and security. The second, inclusiveness, brings with it the promise of a new kind of future, ambiguous certainly but expansive, at least. Those two winds clashed last week and the whole world is waiting to see which of them is stronger.
When Benizar Bhutto lay assassinated in Pakistan on December 28, 2007, news agencies around the world told the political story. Most of them missed completely the cultural story that underlies it.
The media concentrated almost entirely on the death itself. Bhutto was a political figure who had become a political icon and symbol of new life for the country. With her dead, there was plenty of death to go around.
There was, for instance, the death of peace that came with the sudden death of a popular political candidate in the already tension-filled country of Pakistan. Not only was Bhutto dead but so were over 40 other Pakistanis thanks to the riots that followed.
There was, too, the death of confidence in government as a whole. Over 400 government buildings, they told us, were torched in the chaos that followed the loss of Bhutto to the political life of the country, Polling places were destroyed, a symbol of the death of free elections, a clear statement of the gap between the powerful and the powerless there.
We all saw, as well, the death of integrity on world-wide television. Two doctors -- one who had treated Mrs. Bhutto when she was admitted to the hospital, and one speaking as spokesperson for the government the following day -- gave separate and different accounts of her death. The first described the condition of the body and the bullet wounds that killed her. The second told the world that Bhutto was brought into the hospital "her eyes rolled back in her head and with no sign of pulse -- both signs of cardio-pulmonary arrest" brought on, we were supposed to believe, by striking her head on the rim of the sun roof of her car as it lurched forward after an explosion. Obviously one of those doctors was surely not telling the truth. Clearly honesty had died on a grand scale right before our eyes.
But another kind of death, largely unnoted in the public press, gave sign of the seriousness of the other four. With the death of Benizar Bhutto the hope of women for justice, for full human development, for recognition and participation in the public arena, died a bit everywhere, too.
Once prime minister of a secular government, Bhutto was now a candidate for re-election in a country tilting dangerously toward theocracy. When warned that her life might well be in danger, Bhutto's response, according to a BBC radio interview (Jan. 3, 2008) was that "no Muslim would kill a woman." Maybe not. Probably no good Catholic or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist would either. But being Catholic, or Muslim -- or member of any other orthodox religious ilk for that matter -- has little or nothing to do with it. Instead, fundamentalism, the first wind circling the globe, is the real problem.
The thought of a woman leader, meaning a leader who is a woman, simply cannot be stomached by religious fundamentalists. According to The Washington Post, (Dec. 28, 2007, "Bhutto Targeted by Many Militant Groups) "some members of Pakistan's intelligence establishment resented the idea of a woman leading a Muslim nation." After all, fundamentalists teach, God does not want women acting like real human beings -- making decisions, having ideas, developing leadership skills. The God who gave women the same brains that God gave to men apparently gave brains to women only to taunt them, to mock them, to make certain that they understand the depths of their human deprivation. To these people, women are meant to be the servants of men, not the leaders of men. Equal, they say, but "different." These people will do anything to still a woman's voice, to kill a woman's public influence.
CNN's special investigative report, "Lifting the Veil," is clear about what happens to women where the Taliban, Islam's fundamentalist sect, seeks to be -- pretends to be -- the real, the only, expression of Islam. In these places, women are imprisoned in their homes, allowed in public only with a man or at least heavily shrouded, forbidden to drive or travel alone, left uneducated, married off as children and abandoned on the streets when widowed. It's a bleak, desperate situation. "God's will," they say -- as have so many before them.
In theocratic governments, religions other than the state religions exist only by virtue of the fiat of the state and the state is devoted to maintaining the laws of the religion that underlies it. Too bad for everyone else. Like women.
Absolutism is the old wind.
Inclusiveness is the new wind.
And this new wind is blowing, as well. Benizar Bhutto, although a most religious woman, was also the proponent of a secular democratic government. In the secular state, all religions enjoy equal protection under the law. All people are safe from the excesses of religion. This is the wind of justice and equality. And it is equally religious as well as comfortably secular.
This is the wind that comes with those who believe that God created all people with human rights, that God calls women, as well as men, to go on doing God's will, to continue co-creating the universe, to be moral agents. To vote, to minister, to teach, to think, to lead.
As a result, women everywhere, propelled by religion, are calling on both their religions and their governments to realize that as long as women can be suppressed, ignored, discriminated against, used, abused and made invisible -- all in the name of God -- humanity is only half human, government is suspect and religion itself is in danger of betraying itself.
Until the women's agenda is addressed, until things change for women, until the Benizar Bhuttos, the Hillary Clintons, and the Bishop Kathryn Jeffers-Shorri's of the world, leaders all, are the norm, not the exception, until domination and female invisibility stops being blamed on God, oppression will be the norm. Then nothing may change for women, true, but nothing will change for the rest of the world either. The fact is that whether they realize it or not, in the end, oppressors limit themselves as much as they limit those they oppress.
From where I stand, it seems clear that religions that only pretend to be religions ride on the past wind. Just look around you at all the women's groups rising up all over the world. In the face of religious fundamentalism, all of them -- like Benizar Bhutto -- pay the price, of course. But, has anyone noticed, these groups of women leaders are not going away.
Be not mistaken: There is clearly another wind blowing that no number, no kind, of assassinations can quell.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Sr. Chittister has painted
Sr. Chittister has painted us a portrait of Benazir Bhutto which is compelling: a glamorous, Western-educated scion of a great South Asian political dynasty who represented the best hope for women and the poor against the dark forces of fundamentalism. She's portrayed as everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be. From this position is launched the standard dark ages vs. enlightenment essay- a liberal tradition going all the way back to Voltaire.
But what we're not being told here is that Ms. Bhutto was apparently the victim of Islamist militant groups that she allowed to flourish under her administrations in the 1980s and 1990s. It was under Ms. Bhutto’s watch that the Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, first installed the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was also at that time that hundreds of young Islamic militants were recruited from the madrassas to do the agency’s dirty work in Indian Kashmir. Everyone now knows how disastrous the rule of the Taliban turned out to be in Afghanistan, how brutally it subjugated women, created Al Qaeda and turned Kashmir into a Jihadist playground. For years, during her second tenure as PM, Bhutto lied brazenly to Washington about the extent to which Pakistan, with her approval, was covertly arming and funding the Taliban and Kashmir's radicals. As Bhutto admitted in a 2002 interview: “Once I gave the go-ahead that they should get the money, I don’t know how much money they were ultimately given … I know it was a lot. It was just carte blanche.”
To the Bhutto goverment, women's rights were on the back burner, on the front burner was their first objective: to keep a newly liberated Afghanistan yoked to Pakistan and out of India’s orbit. Out of this relationship would flow the riches of a Pakistan-controlled trucking industry circumventing Kabul – a modern Silk Road trade incorporating the markets of Central Asia – the never realized gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, and training camps, off the Pakistan reservation, for fighters deployed to Kashmir. Bhutto had an economic and political vision for Pakistan, one that depended largely on creating a compliant client state next door. Call it naivety, stupidity or bad luck, it all spun out of control and eventually resulted in Al Qaeda – now firmly interwoven with the Taliban which would plot from the start, her political demise.
But the primary opposition to her rule within Pakistan is the corruption and looting of the national treasury by her immediate family. Surely most NCR readers trust the reportage of The New York Times (being reliably liberal, secular, anti-catholic and anti-Bush) Before Bhuttomania clouded everyone's judgement, the New York Times on Jan 9, 1998 published a special report entitled "Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption in Pakistan" and House of Graft: Tracing the Bhutto Millions: A Special Report. This investigation outlines the Pakistani government's case against her which is that more than $100 million was stolen from the country and secreted in foreign bank accounts and properties controlled by Bhutto's family. Because she declared herself her party's president for life and controlled all decisions it is difficult to get an answer to these very serious charges. She refused to discuss any of the specific deals outlined in the documents, and did not explain how her husband, (a dilettante Polo player who became known to all Pakistanis as "Mr. 10 Percent" because of his taste for massive bribes) had paid for his property and jewelry. Lamenting what she described as "the irreparable damage done to my standing in the world" by the corruption inquiry, she said her family had inherited wealth, despite their wealth not even coming close the scale implied by the huge bank deposits and luxury properties overseas.
The point of all this is not to disparage the memory of Ms. Bhutto but to expose the first intrinsic flaw in this month's essay: The assertion that there is a neat divide between (corrupt) "Absolutism" and (clean) "Inclusiveness." This is a facile position which the evidence doesn't support. Bhutto's party was both broadly inclusive and hopelessly corrupt.
Jolenecasa, Obviously,
Jolenecasa,
Obviously, Bhutto had many supporters, and religious extremist terrorist did her in, not due to anything such as you write, but due to the fact she is a woman and she embodied the spirit of those in her country who were against religious extremism. Given a choice between a leadership of a Taliban-like regime, Pakistan stood up and said with the voice of their female leader that they will not tolerate them and, in essence said, 'we will not wear a burka, we will not bow down to the extremes, but will for our country a democracy with rights for women and men.'
This is the main point that I understood from Sr. Joan's writing: "Until the women's agenda is addressed, until things change for women, until the Benizar Bhuttos, the Hillary Clintons, and the Bishop Kathryn Jeffers-Shorri's of the world, leaders all, are the norm, not the exception, until domination and female invisibility stops being blamed on God, oppression will be the norm."
You said, "But the primary opposition to her rule within Pakistan is the corruption and looting of the national treasury by her immediate family."
The primary opposition to her rule were men who belive women should wear burkas, women should not have any rights, women should not be educated, women should shut up and be enslaved or they will be killed.
Jolenecasa, I appreciated
Jolenecasa, I appreciated reading the above. I have to say that I agree with your position about the "neat divide". It is difficult to present a "point of view" and not seem one-sided. Most are aware that there are "two sides of the story" and shades of gray everywhere. I'm certain Ms. Bhutto discovered this when she tried to rule Pakistan years ago. I would like to think she was sincere in her desire to benefit her people, but I am sure corruption was overwhelming and rampant, as it has been in that area ("the way business is done"---do I agree with it? No.) for many years, and continues to be.
I happen to know very wealthy people in the United States who have had much easier access to the "Powers That Be" in Rome (and elsewhere) than ordinary, everyday citizens. I remember being astounded, many, many years ago, when my wealthy and kindly Aunt mentioned travelling to Rome to get her daughter's annulment(s) "taken care of". This was under the "old rules" of the Church. Why? because people who have lots of money and "donate" huge sums to Church-related charities(for which they get a tax write-off.) do enjoy certain privilege. It's a "fact of life" in our culture, as well. I'm sure Benezir Bhutto observed this while she was at Harvard, so she probably saw little awry with the way her Family managed its affairs.
The personal lives of "large contributors" are no different than ours, nor their personal failings and disappointments, yet they are fawned upon. They probably, at times,(don't count on this--people get used to and feel "entitled" to certain treatment) may not even realize that they have a certain power and influence with those who require their charity, or that others could not have access to the same. They simply "move in certain circles" where things are easier, and accomplished more quickly. I am, of course, talking about people who have millions to contribute.
Power and money, let's face it, wield disproportionate influence everywhere--Church AND State. So it has been for thousands of years. As sophisticated a form of Democracy as we think we have, we are dealing with issues of corruption in our own Government at the moment. I have no wish to argue this point on one side or the other--corruption just "is", sad to say, and it is hard to root out completely, as much as one would wish to, and continue the effort for " a level playing field" for all...People are human, and they are unfortunately influenced by the material, even if it is for a "good end". Is it truly "Christian"? No. But it has taken our civilizations thousands of years to even realize that corruption, bribes, etc. are even questionable.
My point: "corruption" is "here, and now", not just in Pakistan, and not just with the Bhuttos.
These are all good
These are all good observations. I too would like to give Ms. Bhutto the benefit of the doubt and hope she was sincere in her intention to bring justice and peace to all of Pakistan. Her husband was no angel and the opposition lined up against her from the beginning, partly due to her being a woman but a greater part was due her party promising the moon and delivering zero because it was riddled with corruption. I think her fatal flaw was her liberalism (and I don't mean that as an insult). To be a liberal means to believe in history and progress. It is to believe that with enough reason, education and laws, fallen humanity will cancel out original sin, walk away from hate, corruption and prejudice and towards a new humanity which is peace-loving, wise and and prosperous.
I would hope readers here take the spurious association being proposed here between "fundamentalism" and "justice for women" with a large grain of salt. Power, corruption and women's oppression comes from many more places than fundamentalist religion. It comes from economic superpowers, liberal atheists, pornographers, no-fault divorce lawyers, secular humanists, Russian slave traders, and our own warped husbands, brothers and sons subsisting in our post-Christian and hyper-sexualized societies. Oppression is anywhere in this world where the choice is made against Jesus Christ.
I'm highly sceptical of the wares being peddled by icons like Jefferts Schori, Hillary Clinton, Joyce Meyers, Ann Coulter, Oprah Winfrey or Benazir Bhutto. Why? because they CAN"T have anything realistic to offer to oppressed women until they first humble themselves to embrace the Truth taught by the Church Jesus Christ left us. The Church–which so many here seem to hate so profoundly–is only guarantee of a woman's dignity and worth.
Jolene, you're absolutely on
Jolene, you're absolutely on target with this: "Power, corruption and women's oppression comes from many more places than fundamentalist religion." The overriding reason for women's (humanity's) oppression is probably money and material wealth, as in who has it, how they intend to increase their share, and how to keep and pass on the power it represents. Unfortunately, the distribution of wealth in the world is now about as skewed to the few as it's ever been, and it's getting worse.
It seems to me, that fundamentalism is being used and manipulated to promote agendas which benefit this few, at the expense of all the rest of us.
By the way, I don't hate the church. I do however, make a huge distinction between the Church, and the elements of the hierarchy which seem hell bent on maintaining an almost fascist attitude with regards to the laity in defining their own positions of power. I want transparency, not secrecy. I want dialogue, not dictates. I want them to stop the purposeful confusion that seems to equate the institutional system (or particular leaders) with Jesus Christ.
The Church is not the guarantor of a my dignity and worth as a woman. The real guarantor is me, my relationship with Christ, and how I freely choose to enact that relationship in the world.
Colcoch, it's Lent. Remember
Colcoch, it's Lent. Remember 1 Peter 2:9? "..You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood. ... upon us-we have been made royal priests in the Royal Priest, Jesus Christ.."
Now is the time we should be especially mindful at the Offertory, to sacrifice and offer to God that which we recognize belongs to him. All the good that touches us along with the evils as well. As Job says: The Lord Giveth, the Lord Taketh Away, Blessed be the Name of the Lord.
Everything you and I have comes from God. All our dignity and all our worth comes from God and belongs to God. God is the guarantor, not any human agency. Slavery, sexual exploitation, economic objectification murder and war have been the constant results of human plans for women. Look beyond power, corruption and money, those are just the most visible mediums-the source of all evil is the devil and our eternal relationship to him/it through the original sin of our original parents. Despite all our evolution and modernity, concupiscence remains forever branded into our souls-we are attracted, on some primitive level, to what the devil offers as an alternative to obedience to God.
But look back to history and try to find the example of a humanly created justice for women. And forget western societies living off the capital of centuries of Christianity-that's still the God calling the shots. A purely, non-exploitative manifesto which IN PRACTICE gave women absolute freedom and justice.
I can't see how a Catholic can reject "elements of the hierarchy" without also concluding that God is an power-tripping idiot needing correction from the laity. How can we reject the constant teachings of the Church without automatically concluding that God is ignorant for not "realizing" that the Church his Son established would become a flawed vehicle for revelation? It would hold the line for centuries, providing joy, guidance and salvation for all humanity, then SUDDENLY, sometime after the 1960's would lose it's supernatural character and become less powerful than the whims and caprice of mortal men who would "manipulate" it to "define their positions of power."
God willed his Church to teach precisely what it teaches OR he's a spectator. Thats the choice. If you pick option two, then this God of yours is a deity with LESS authority than the average parish congregation and of course you're angry. To me this position flies in the face of what we know about God from the beginning.
Jolene we do have a
Jolene we do have a fundamental difference in our world views regarding the Church. I can reject "elements of the hierarchy" without concluding that God is a power-tripping idiot needing correction from the laity. I don't confuse the magnificent transcendance of God with the opinions of power-tripping ecclesiastics. I don't equate the cart with the horse, I guess is one way to put it.
The institution of the Church has always been a flawed vehicle for revelation because it's composed of humans who have susceptibilities and flaws as you so correctly point out about humans earlier in your post. I can't pretend that truth away.
For me the church hasn't lost it's supernatural character and it never has because Jesus guaranteed it wouldn't. That certain knowledge of mine keeps me vested in the Church, vested in my baptismal rights as a member of this church. It's my church too, and I have differences of opinion with other members of the Church, but I would never deny any member of the Church access to it's supernatural character, because I can't know how that Spirit will work it's magic in any given human. That is God's will. It was there before the 60's and it's still there.
Your last line about God being a spectator kind of interests me because in giving us free will He did assign himself a sort of spectator role. Job's story is kind of interesting in that God gave Lucifer a whole lot more ability to interfere with Job than God gave Himself. In this story God loads the dice against Job, and Job calls God on it, and Job gets an answer. I believe this is the only story in the Old Testament in which God answers a man.
I take that story strongly to heart. For some people the Church is stacking the dice against us, and we have a right to call them on it both by Baptism and by decency. Job never lost his Faith in the transcendance of God, and I have not lost my faith in the supernatural character of the Church. God finally answered for Himself to Job, and I'm still waiting.
It is curious to me that you
It is curious to me that you read the NY Times even though you say "Surely most NCR readers trust the reportage of The New York Times (being reliably liberal, secular, anti-catholic and anti-Bush) Before Bhuttomania clouded everyone's judgement, the New York Times on Jan 9, 1998 published a special report entitled "Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption in Pakistan" and House of Graft: Tracing the Bhutto Millions: A Special Report.
Seems you are relying on this information you've come up with from a "liberal, secular, anti-catholic and anti-Bush" news organization.
In response to a question
In response to a question regarding the appropriateness of my earlier posting recommending the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as a means to assist in the alleviation of poverty and discrimination against girls and women, I offer these words from www.mdgender.net regarding the 3rd of 8 MDG goals - that concerning equality for women:
"Goal 3 challenges discrimination against women, and seeks to ensure that girls as well as boys have the chance to go to school. Indicators linked to this goal aim to measure progress towards ensuring that more women become literate, have more voice and representation in public policy and decision making, and have improved job prospects. But the issue of gender equality is not limited to a single goal — it applies to all of them. Without progress towards gender equality and the empowerment of women, none of the MDGs will be achieved."
I confess to being at a loss to understand how this goal is anything less than responsible and compassionate. The striking part of this statement, to me, is the last sentence. Without gender equality so much harm is maintained; WITH GENDER EQUALITY A WORLD OF LIBERATION OPENS.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. (Is 60:1)
Without getting too far off
Without getting too far off track here, any women's rights initiative basing itself on the western academic construct called "gender" will oppress women because it opposes God's vision of humanity. God is the creator and his vision is truth-He created as humans as men and women-two separate but equally dignified SEXES.
Now why would a woman oppose better education for her "gender" as enshrined as Goal 3? Here's why.
The UN is not asking us to approve Goal 3, it is asking us to vote YES on the whole package -Goals 1 through 8.
For women, Goal 3 is the candy coating meant to hide the goal 5-the cyanide core called "Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio." The method to achieve goal five was pretty apparent at the London MDG conference- it was clear there that the UN's goal for women was "total reproductive freedom" -an impossible pipe dream meant to sucker the credulous into this mass extermination campaign of the third world's "unfit."
Did you listen to the the opening plenary? The conference organizers and speakers announced that abortion rights were the number one solution to the global problem of maternal mortality. Thirty percent of the panels were devoted expressly to that. What women's issues were virtually absent from the agenda? Oh, let's see... Skilled birth attendants, emergency obstetric care, malaria, obstetric fistula, newborn health and basic issues such as clean water, shelter and nutrition. In short, the actual real issues of women's maternal mortality.
It's like the UN hosting a conference on reducing the infirmities of old age by funding suicide programs in nursing homes. It's the same mentality: killing babies reduces maternal mortality, ergo, euthanasia will reduce the incidence of diabetes, osteoarthritis and diverticulosis in the elderly...
Those who believe the UN's vision of men and women as "genders" see abortion as the greatest emancipator of women. Those who accept God's vision of men and women, see abortion as not only the murder of a child, but the murder of the very essence of a woman. They see abortion as the key enabler of women's sexual objectification which, in turn, is the source of oppression, violence and slavery for women.
City of Man. City of God.
I appreciate your pointing
I appreciate your pointing out that a goal described in such general terms as "reducing by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio" is not properly focused. The goal, as you might agree, should be for no woman to be forced into pregnancy and for women who desire to bear children to be provided with as much assistance as possible to assure a good outcome.
From the Hunger Project
From the Hunger Project [www.thp.org/gender/] - hardly a subversive organization, unless there is some hidden sly evil involved in feeding the world's poor:
"When we look at the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), they’re not just gender-related. Gender inequality is often the root cause of the problem.” — Joan Holmes
“Gender” does not simply mean male or female. Gender refers to the different roles that society assigns to women and men. To achieve the MDGs, we must understand and address the inequalities that arise from the different roles of women and men, the unequal power relations between them, and the consequences in people’s lives, health and well-being.
Promoting gender equality and empowering women is MDG 3. Yet our experience in The Hunger Project is that gender equality is fundamental to meeting every MDG. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, “Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.”
God help us.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. (Is 60:1)
"What women's issues were
"What women's issues were virtually absent from the agenda? Oh, let's see... Skilled birth attendants, emergency obstetric care, malaria, obstetric fistula, newborn health and basic issues such as clean water, shelter and nutrition. In short, the actual real issues of women's maternal mortality."
This insight is what the "4" is for.
Yes, let us by all means start addressing the broader structural causes of human death (gender and sex not withstanding)! Let's even venture forth and examine the economic and social causes of poverty at their ideological root (that would be Capitalism) and the Church's complicity in sustaining systems of inequality for all people and suppression of women's lives, in particular. Let us proceed with courage in reclaiming both the politics and spirit of distributive justice as Christ-followers.
As for, "It's like the UN hosting a conference on reducing the infirmities of old age by funding suicide programs in nursing homes. It's the same mentality: killing babies reduces maternal mortality, ergo, euthanasia will reduce the incidence of diabetes, osteoarthritis and diverticulosis in the elderly..." Well, this hyperbole is just silly and serves to undercut your better observation.
But that's what adherence to the pro-life agenda with its IDEOLOGICAL blinders does, inevitably. Like all reductionism, the single-purpose, one size-fits-all, easy rhetoric of the "pro-life" (so tragically a misnomer) mantra degrades to a caricature of passionate abstraction aimed in the wrong direction at the wrong people.
Such a shame, really.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. (Is 60:1)
Elaine, I really agree with
Elaine, I really agree with your assessment of Jolene's post. I too thought she had made a very salient point and then torpedoed it with the comparison with Euthenasia.
What I also don't understand is why the prolifer's aren't all over China and India for the widespread use of sex selective abortion. I can see where Pakistan might be getting a little concerned about generations of young men with no hope of a family sitting on their border with India.
This kind of gender issue really does pose serious societal issues and yet I hear virtually nothing from the prolife movement in this country about this use of abortion. I don't hear much from the Church about this issue. Maybe the Church is afraid seriously raising this issue will threaten their talks over Church autonomy in China. If that's true, that would be very sad. Come to think of it, I don't think I've heard on word from our pro-life president on this issue. I don't imagine that has anything to do with corporate investments in China and India.
Catholics have always been
Catholics have always been the voice of conscience (perhaps the only voice to speak out these days) regarding China's forced abortion policy, organ havesting of prisoners, forced labour and persecution and torture of her priests and faithful. The Magisterium sometimes must work behind the scenes and under the rader as a strategic move. This is the correct and moral course of action. Pius XII publicly denounced the Nazis as far as he was able to (without the gestapo raiding the Vatican and burning it to the ground). He worked with priests and religious to save thousands of jews (as the survivors testefied after the war). With modern China, we're still dealing with communists. Lets remember, they killed millions of thir own citizens during Mao's "cultural revolution." and machine gunned thousands to death in Tianamen Square. To be brought to the truth and life of Christ is something that works quietly, not on the stage.
But you're right, Colcoch, Bush (...and I would add, any western politician) no longer has the freedom of conscience to proclaim his or her Christian faith as a social foundation of civilization. Our America has been sold out by our own sins of materialism. Our addiction to the la dolce vita over our trust in God means we've effectively abandoned Christian truth for the muslim oil and atheist manufacturing which makes our lives materially better and our spirit impoverished. God only know where it will all lead us.
Where God leads us: Perhaps
Where God leads us: Perhaps to the kind of repentance that is a genuine metanoia - one that unclenches hearts and opens minds?
Is it possible that "VOICES of conscience" are multi-lingual and diverse in both approach and method? Is it possible that VOICES of conscience have been formed by humble listening as much as by obedient saying?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be li
Jolene, I agree with most of
Jolene, I agree with most of what you've written. I also see a big difference between the World War II situation of Pope Pius, and the current situation vis a vis Pope Benedict and China. The Chinese government itself is attempting to stop this practice, which amounts to sexual genocide. Even they have recognized they have a budding disaster on their hands. It seems to me the Vatican should be supporting this Chinese effort, and yet I hear silence.
This is a serious prolife issue, and it will continue to cause all kinds of problems, not the least of which is the abduction and sale of women for 'marriage'. I guess I just see this as the ultimate denial of the dignity and sanctity of the feminine vocation on it's most basic level. It boggles my mind that whole cultures can be so mysoginistic and myopic that they bankrupt their procreative future with the wholesale slaughter of their girl babies. And the silence from the West speaks volumes, as you so rightly point out, about where our real priorities lie.
It is true that a tradition
It is true that a tradition of infanticide of females existed in China before the communists took over in 1949. One 19th century missionary in China interviewed 40 women over age 50 who reported having borne 183 sons and 175 daughters, of whom 126 sons but only 53 daughters survived to age 10. By their account, the women had destroyed 78 of their daughters.
Nevertheless, we must face the truth here that the Communist Gods have failed utterly to offer a more just vision of human dignity than that offered by Jesus Christ.
China's one child policy is the great Auschwitz for women and easily the single greatest cause of female infant mortality. The World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that more than 50 MILLION women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child. And shockingly, these numbers are just since 1979. Years of engineering the extermination of "surplus" baby girls has created a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female populations.
Where the choice has been made for the devil, he will oblige us with more evil. Today there are 111 million more men than women in China who will not be able to find a wife and as a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of women has greatly increased. The thirst for women is so acute that the slave trader gangs are well established outside China in Laos, North Vietnam and Thailand to find new merchandise. For those girls not killed in the womb, they are received at the rate of one million a year to the notorious dying rooms, the Chinese state orphanages where 95% of the babies are able-bodied girls.
Compare God's plan and Man's plan for women. Look at the lives of a Hildegard of Bingen, St. Therese or a Dorothea Day and compare it with one of the millions of discarded girls imprisoned in Chinese dying rooms where they're tied by the wrists and ankles to bamboo benches, a row of plastic buckets is lined up beneath holes in their seats to catch their urine and excrement. They'll not be moved again until night, when they will be lifted out and tied to their beds. No love, no stimulation, no play, no touch. Just endless rocking as the only stimulation and only pleasure in their lives.
Hildegard of Bingen, St. Therese or a Dorothea Day fulfill God's justice, the Dying room girls fulfill man's justice.
The lesson? Humanity cannot create anything objectively good without God. The 20th century repeated this lesson over and over but we were stone deaf to God's voice. Look at the wasteland of 1900-2000. The devil used our most thoughtfully laid plans for justice and prosperity and turned them into a mockery of God and an assault on human dignity. We still cling to the illusion that human good intentions are sufficient and reject God's loving guidance, a God who is our SAVIOUR against all this violence toward women.
Well said Jolene. Our
Well said Jolene. Our virtual universal male preference appears to be the dark force's best method of denying the creative and spiritual relationship between humanity and God.
You have been too quick,
You have been too quick, Sister, to canonize (so to speak) Benizar Bhutto. Far too quick!
Jemima Khan (Jewish convert to Islam and wife of Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan of the Tehreek-e-Insaf or Movement for Justice Party and now British-based political pundit) sums Bhutto up in this way:
“The West lapped up [her] facile soundbites and overlooked [her] deeply flawed political record. Just as most Western commentators have done after her death.”
Citing Bhutto as your shining example of a woman in power, you cast discredit on your argument for the empowerment of women.
Joe536
I agree... When it comes to
I agree... When it comes to politics, the Western liberal media tends to be primarily concerned with how photogenic a candidate is, followed by how well their speeches stroke their listeners emotionally, followed by how much personal freedom they promise individuals (irrespective of how such freedoms would impact society as a whole).
Always at the bottom of media's concerns is the personal conduct and morality of the candidate (as if personal character has nothing to do with public integrity, promises kept and honesy in government). The coverage of Benazir Bhutto as an excellent example of how such a lack of realism distorts the real facts on the ground in Pakistan
Understand your point about
Understand your point about women and leadership. But you have skipped over a significant part of past and current history. Pakistan is a country made up of hundreds of tribes and there is an on-going history of corruption, bribes, etc. as this country & its leadership and political parties evolve. The Bhutto family - her father, brother, etc. - were involved in this evolution but were also a part of its tribal history e.g. non-democratic, power-grabbing, used corruption to achieve their ends. Who can say if she would have completely broken from this history and tradition? Now her son is her designated replacement - is this democratic or tribal?
The fact is: women in Africa, Europe, Asia have been elected and held their country's highest offices for years. The USA is very behind in terms of sharing leadership with women but ahead of Islamic countries. Your point is emotional but needs to be seen in a more complete factual light.
Well, Bhutto was a muslim
Well, Bhutto was a muslim and a leader so perhaps the Islamists are ahead of the U.S.
But, as a world power (whether we are a waning one or not is another thing), we should be showing the way, not following. As one of the world's largest and oldest churches we should be leading, not following. American, catholic women are double whammied!! and we shouldn't get a bit emotional? As far as corruption, bribery and so on, have you forgotten our own history, yet we still have an election coming up and we still expect people to show up and vote.
I just had to add my voice
I just had to add my voice to thank you for this posting. Knowing how important the women's issue is to me, my husband for the first time ever (in 35 years) has said he will vote my choice for President, knowing I will be voting for Hillary. As he is known in my family as a dinosaur resisting most modern change, this is a very big deal to me.
Now, if only the dinosaurs in our church would consider women as seriously as my husband just did.
A lot of the wind is caused by huffing and puffing. I remember about 12 years ago, talking to a Sister who led Communion services in a small town, how she said if you asked the people if they wanted women priests, they were adamantly opposed to the idea. But, they never failed to thank her for a wonderful "Mass" after each Communion service. We both gave a chuckle to the irony there but really knew it was a serious hurdle. Have we moved forward in these twelve years? Maybe this year, we can at least politically and every small step is a step forward.
Would that the winds of
Would that the winds of fundamentalism and of inclusiveness were equal in strength. Fundamentalism has the force of a hurricane; inclusiveness is but a gentle breeze.
Now, the wind of demands-for-inclusiveness has reached gale force and is growing stronger by the moment. Isn't the wind of inclusiveness simply one of many gentle breezes being dominated by the wind of fundamentalism Sorry. Got too long winded.
Dear Old Baguette ~
Dear Old Baguette ~ interesting name and comment. Are you suggesting that "inclusiveness" has been coopted by radicals (possibly feminists)? If that is your point, I would suggest that the response is yes by some and that inclusiveness is the cry of many who aren't and others who wish they did not have to be radical. While inclusiveness is a "gentle" concept in its achievement it is not in its quest. Inclusiveness as quest recognizes, I think, that "exclusiveness" not only "exists" but "re-sists" thus whipping up a gale, as you might say.
And neither does the
And neither does the Catholic Church!
There is a pathological fear
There is a pathological fear of women built into the very foundation of the Abrahamic faiths beginning with the story of Eve consorting with the Serpent and bringing Sin and Death into the world. This fear of the "demonic" female is especially rife in the fundamentalist versions of the three major Abrahamic faiths, and specifically among the male members of these sects. The only real cure for this fear is experience, that is, by demonstrating that the world will neither come to an end nor revert to the smoking altars of Baal when women have achieved positions of power and authority. I believe that it is our obligation, and especially the obligation of we men who have been spared this "pathological fear", to make an extra effort to support qualified women seeking positions of leadership.
"Be not mistaken: There is
"Be not mistaken: There is clearly another wind blowing that no number, no kind, of assassinations can quell."
Amen Sister! Amen! Power to the Women of the World. Power to the Women, Amen. Awomen.
:-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Inclusivness is the
Inclusivness is the prevailing wind because God is inclusive. Thanks, Joan!
Can Sr. Joan, or some other
Can Sr. Joan, or some other website, furnish us with names of groups that work most effectively for women's rights worldwide? We all need to get into this fight.
G'day. Here are some sites
G'day.
Here are some sites related to the Millenium Development Goals:
http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal3.shtml
and
http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal3.shtml
- that has especially good resources for discussion and debate. E.g.:
* Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Population and Reproductive Health as Critical Determinants.
The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) goal of universal access to quality reproductive health services by 2015 is not one of the MDGs. Yet as this publication demonstrates, it is essential for meeting the MDGs. The attainment of reproductive health and reproductive rights are fundamental for development, for fighting poverty and for meeting the MDG targets. This publication shows by means of analytical graphics, the fundamental importance of addressing population and reproductive health for achieving the MDGs.
* Seeking Accountability on Women's Human Rights: Women Debate the Millennium Development Goals.
Women's International Coalition for Economic Justice (WICEJ) has invited women from different regions, working on diverse issues, to contribute to the debate on MDGs from their particular vantage points. These take the form of articles as well as brief opinion pieces. Through these debates, many women are seeking to reframe the development dialogue, once again, to put gender, racial equality and human rights, including social and economic rights, center-stage.
* A Change of Course, The Millennium Development Goals Through the Lens of the Women's Global Charter for Humanity.
Report presents a feminist point of view on the 8 Goals and suggest how some indicators could be improved to really eradicate poverty.
You also can find more extensive links on this site.
For Volunteer Involvement on a international level see:
http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/mdgs/mdg-stories/mdg-3-gender-equality.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
I serve on the Domestic and Global Mission Commission in my Episcopal Diocese of Ohio and am giving a workshop next month on "Women's Equality; a Call to Conversion" at our annual Mission and Ministry Conference and would be happy to share information. You can contact me by email as per this site.
God's peace.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. (Is 60:1)
The winds of time ARE
The winds of time ARE changing and your profound, heartfelt essay of Bhutto surely provoked much ire on the plight of women, including women of the Church, and sadly, women around the world. It is no doubt a very personal response that comes through and I fully support and applaud this freedom of expression. I have long felt that peace will never be attained unless women share the power. And, at this time of primary elections, whoever wins will only succeed historically if he or she believes in the Power of Love as Jesus taught us, regardless of orientation. Think about the most effective leaders in US history and ask if this Power of Love was effective. Let us pray that Power of Love wins so the Bhutto's of the world will not die in vain.
After reading Joan
After reading Joan Chittister's article on Benizar Bhutto's assasination, the thought came to me: If Hillary Clinton is eventually elected President of the U.S. what will happen to her given that the U.S. is on the black list of radical Islammism???
They simply do not tolerate women in leadership positions!
-----Aristophilos
It seems to me that a
It seems to me that a "presumptive strike" against Islam, even radical Islam, for an hypothetical act of misogynistic terrorism might be indicative of misguided bigotry. I recall similar assumptions being leaped to with the US olympic site bomb and with the Oklohoma City. Even in our countries which enjoy relatively sophisticated forms of democracy "hate" killings based on reasons of sex, race, religion etc., are not unknown. I think the problem is with the "radical" rather than the "...ism"
Madam Cardinal.If Benedict
Madam Cardinal.If Benedict were to allow the ordination of women tomorrow would women be happy having achieved a landmark for women? Would it be a landmark for Catholicism? or would it give women more power? A woman could be president of the US, or Speaker of the house then she could definitely run a diocese or the entire church. For the present the avenue toward the power that is sought may not be through the priesthood. A lay person can be a cardinal and that may be what happens. How about an entire consultative body that would have the status of the college of cardinals made up entirely of women?