The Vatican Monologues: No Vagina's Allowed genre: Hip-Gnosis & Six Degrees of Speculation


If you're ever seeking to understand the monolithic nature of misogyny, look no further than the Catholic Church. With classic institutional gobbledygook, the Vatican has made it clear that the ordination of female priests is unacceptable and grounds for immediate excommunication.

Pardon my disgust, but the utter idiocy of the Church's rationale is enough to make one hope for an afterlife...if for nothing more than the singular opportunity to kick the Grand Poobah in the keister for his part in enabling the wholly fallible interpretations of his head honcho's here on earth.

The decree was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the church's existing ban on female priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favor admitting women to the priesthood.

The church said it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles. Church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest.

Let's have some fun with the above logic. On the one hand, it seems that the Church is suggesting that God has decreed that woman have a lesser status in his holy hierarchy. In other words, when God elected to send Jesus to live amongst order to redeem our sins and show us the path to salvation...he had no problem with women being relegated to subservient status.

That would have to mean that God believed that we humans had that piece of the life equation right all along. In fact, the inference is that Jesus wasn't conforming to the existing norms when he excluded women from being apostles...he was merely upholding God's belief that women were to be the equivalent of chattel.

I'm sorry, but that's a crock of crap and the fact that the Vatican is willing to cling to such an archaic argument is a testament to their intransigent ideology. It's also a demonstration of an unflinching arrogance to adapt God's intentions accordingly. Honestly, isn't this the same church that spent four decades concealing the serial molestation of underage children by the very men they seek to elevate to privileged status?

Crass as this may sound, I'm of the opinion that had there been a few vagina's in the monastery, there may have been a call for accountability and a demand for a demonstration of conscience - instead of a rallying around the rapists in order to retain an unearned reign of recalcitrant righteousness.

Then again, my experience tells me that the nuns have always done the lion's share of the heavy lifting while the priests have paraded about in their pretty gowns. Why would I expect the Vatican's vituperate monologue to change now?

Tagged as: Catholic Church, Equality, God, Infallibility, Jesus, Misogyny, Pope Benedict XVI, Priesthood, Vatican, Women

Daniel DiRito | May 29, 2008 | 4:57 PM
AddThis Social Bookmark Button


1 On May 29, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Ben in Oakland wrote —

Actually, daniel, this whole thing is even more bogus than you have written.

It is very likely that Jesus did in fact have female apostles, though the church, courtesy of that butthead Paul (I will suffer no woman to have authority over men--THAT Paul--who never met any saying of Jesus that he didn't feel free to change) has made every effort to write them out of the history books. Mary Magdalen, far from being a whore, was very likely a disciple, if not the chief disciple. (A la da vinci code, she may have been J's wife, but that is another argument).

It was she who was known as The Apostle to the Apostles. It was she who discovered the allegedly empty tomb. It was she (and a few other ladies) who supported J's ministry. It may have been she who anointed J, one of the conditions that needed to be met so that he could claim his messiahship, in reality, the kingship as a descendant of David, not this holy savior stuff. It is very likely that she is the Disciple whom Jesus loved, (unless it was John and J was, um, ah,hm-- that way).

Coward Peter, excuse me, SAINT Peter, asks in the gospel of thomas or philip (I get them confused--there are a lot of them, and i'm tired) "why do you love her mor than you love us" He also comments that she has been told things that the other disciples don't know.

The whole Da vinci Code thing is far bigger than MM possibly being J's wife, though if that is true, that is certainly big enough. Her actual place in history has been carefully and thoroughly expunged and altered. It was Pope Gregory in the 7th century who deliberately conflated three different women named Mary so that MM could be considered a whore. no scriptural or historical basis or certainty for it. Women named Mary (and this is why there were so many Mary's)--Maryam, or Miriam (as in moses's sister)-- were priestesses. In Jesus's case, being both priest and king as he was, for her to be a disciple is very likely, just based on her name alone.

2 On May 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM, daniel wrote —

Hi Ben,

I agree that the position of the Vatican is bogus on many levels. Unfortunately, finessing the facts to suite their purposes is an area of expertise for the Catholic Church. While I have numerous issues with the ideology of the church, this is one that I find particularly offensive. It reminds me of bullying and I despise people who bully others.

I always enjoy your observations. Keep them coming and take care.


3 On October 31, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Provillus wrote —

Provillus Review - Best hair loss, hair fall and hair regrowth products for men's and women's hair for stop losing hair and grow fast longer and shinning new hair by

4 On April 13, 2014 at 5:02 AM, does the hair loss black book work wrote —

My brother recommended I might likje this website.
He used to be entirely right. This publish actually made my day.

You cann't consider simply hhow much time I had spent for this information!

5 On April 13, 2014 at 5:02 AM, does the hair loss black book work wrote —

My brother recommended I might likje this website.
He used to be entirely right. This publish actually made my day.

You cann't consider simply hhow much time I had spent for this information!

Thought Theater at Blogged

Post a comment

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

© Copyright 2018


Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Now Playing

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader


Planet Atheism - aggregating blogs by non-believers and freethinkers

Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2018

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design