A Catholic Reply to the Charge of Bigotry

Bigotry looms ever larger as a public concern today. Among the educated, articulate, and well-placed, it’s considered an intolerable moral flaw, a revolting psychological deformity, and a totally unnecessary pathology responsible for most of the world’s evils—war, crime, poverty, suicide—you name it.

As bigotry has grown in prominence as an issue, what counts as such has changed and become immeasurably broader. The word originally referred to intolerance in belief and opinion, and thus to political or religious antagonism. Now it mostly refers to intolerance for social groups, which is defined extremely broadly to include the view that distinctions among groups matter enough to be worth noticing and sometimes acting on.

Everyone respectable agrees it has to be stamped out. Schools and other institutions believe it necessary to ensure a sensitive environment through indoctrination, speech codes, and an expansion of the definition of harassment. Many of those measures are thought required by the civil rights laws, and in most of the West some of them are extended to the whole of society through the criminal law. Even ordinary people feel called upon to join the campaign, calling out violators with the aid of social media and bringing down sanctions on them.

The idea seems to be that distinctions universally made have no legitimate function, so that giving them any weight at all is vicious. The distinctions now ruled out are primarily those relevant to identity but irrelevant to the methods and concerns of commercial and bureaucratic institutions that base their claim to authority on neutral expertise and rational efficiency in responding to the needs and choices of individuals. So it’s considered wrong to make distinctions based on ethnicity, sex, cultural heritage, claimed sexual identity, or religious affiliation. That view is comprehensive, enough so to lead Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution, to deny the Knights of Columbus recognition as a student organization because—like the Jesuits themselves—they offer membership only to Catholic men. (Under fire, the university later reversed its position.)

In contrast, it’s OK to make distinctions based on who you know, how progressive you are, which school you went to, what your formal qualifications are, how much money you have, how you score on tests, how charming you are, and what organizational position you hold. Those distinctions are not only considered legitimate but now go very far: an age that has declared war on distinctions it does not like has greatly increased the effect of those it does. And you can also make distinctions on grounds that are normally forbidden, for example race and sex, as long as the effect is to disrupt the social effect of such distinctions in general. That is the meaning of “affirmative action.”

Concerns about bigotry are far from groundless. Whether relating to opinion or group membership, it can lead to horrendous consequences when it goes to extremes. The Nazis enslaved and exterminated Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and others, and the uncomprehending hatred of progressives for non-progressives, that on some accountings has led to most of the violent deaths of the last hundred years, has never been squarely recognized and is still very much alive.

Nonetheless, there’s something odd about the movement as it stands. It’s considered a result of increased moral insight and concern for others in a maturing civilization, but the judgment seems doubtful, considering the growing stupidity of public life and the general indifference to the sometimes astonishing bigotry of the left.

Also, it’s odd that rejection of distinctions like sex that have been basic to all societies should line up so neatly with the interests of technocratic commercial and bureaucratic institutions that would like to do away with distinctions that support the functioning of competing institutions, such as the family. And at a more theoretical level, it’s odd that such distinctions should have human importance sufficient to determine identity but no rational social or practical significance at all. Have people universally identified themselves all these years by reference to characteristics that are invented or absolutely trivial?

Such issues should concern Catholics. We should favor reason and the public good, which require public deliberation that is largely free and rational, and discussion of these issues is becoming less and less so. More pointedly, much of our religion is now classified as bigotry and its exercise has begun to run into various forms of legal and social suppression. We are told, for example, that the male-only priesthood is sexist, the New Testament anti-Semitic, the hierarchy antidemocratic, the view of Islam as a false religion racist, the doctrine of marriage narrow, judgmental, and homophobic, and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, in however nuanced a form, fundamentalist, exclusionary, and incipiently terrorist.

The result is that we shouldn’t simply absorb the dogmas that surround us but need to understand our own. And at bottom, the Church’s position is fairly simple: love of God and neighbor comes first, but includes acceptance of the fundamental goodness of the world God created, and of features of human society necessary for its normal functioning. So distinctions are mostly OK, but nihil nimis, nothing too much.

The key biblical text is Galatians 3:28, where Paul tells us

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

He’s not saying that such distinctions shouldn’t matter in any setting. That would deny what he says elsewhere, for example on relations between the sexes. Worse, it would make our unity in Christ trivial, something that overcomes only distinctions that shouldn’t matter anyway. The point he needs to make, and does make, is that even distinctions integral to social functioning are subordinate to a more fundamental unity. And that is indeed the Church’s view.

Skipping forward 1900 years, the most comprehensive, authoritative, and relevant nonscriptural statement relating to human differences is probably section 29 of Gaudium et Spes, a document of the Second Vatican Council:

The basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition … With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated …

Therefore, although rightful differences exist between men, the equal dignity of persons demands … a more humane and just condition of life … excessive economic and social differences between the members of the one human family or population groups cause scandal.…

So excessive differences and discrimination with respect to fundamental rights are bad, but not all differences are excessive and not everything is a right we have simply by being human. We have a fundamental right not to be murdered or robbed, and to fair procedures if someone’s going to throw us in the slammer. We don’t have one to any particular degree of power, income, or social standing, as long as the differences aren’t excessive and are part of a pattern that serves the common good.

In recent times the issue of human differences has often come up with respect to the position of women in the Church, and that can serve as an example. Here the Church’s view is that women can’t be discriminated against with regard to fundamental rights, and “access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women.…” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2433)

Nonetheless, women can’t be priests. That’s not unjust discrimination, since differences between the sexes are real and relevant. Nor is the men-only priesthood a strange divine command at odds with everything else right and good in human relations, but a consequence of recognition that “women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 99) That is why, for example,

The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value…. Possible discrimination between the different types of work and professions is eliminated at its very root once it is clear that all people, in every area, are working with equal rights and equal responsibilities. (Familiaris Consortio, n. 23)

The effect is that the equality and nondiscrimination the Church promotes don’t mean no differences in function or social position. They mean presidents, popes, dishwashers, and everyone else has a common fundamental human dignity, and attitudes and institutions should recognize that even when there are legitimate differences in position and power. Human differences can indeed cause problems, but you can’t solve the problems by claiming the differences simply shouldn’t be there.

James Kalb


James Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (ISI Books, 2008), and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).

  • Samuel63

    The claim of bigotry is an appeal to the conscience to roll over and accept subversion of the catholic culture. This claim is use by a larger movement to eradicate morality from society. The goal is total control.

    • .
      As a free-range Catholic, I disagree.

      Conversely, I find the desire and effect of “total control” to be the aim and function of the men in the Vatican hierarchy, which I find to be the antithesis of Catholicism.

      • Trazymarch

        Are you in need of history lessons on “totalitarianism” regimes? Protip: They had a lot to do with atheism.

        • .
          Yer comment, @Trazymarch, is too brief or cryptic for me to deduce any unambiguous message from — please resend and elaborate, if you care.

          However, I’m glad you didn’t capitalize “atheism” since it’s not a hierarchical doctrinal organization with leaders and followers.

          If anyone is responsible for creating atheists, it’s the hierarchical doctrinal organized religious.

          I think it’s funny when folks try to paint individuals with a collective brush in an effort to dismiss them as a preordained and pre-dismisses non-entity.

          Bigotry is by definition by-god-ism.

      • Samuel63

        “Peter, I say to you, those who reject you, reject Me, and the One who sent Me.”

  • Adhemarde

    Excellent piece. Bigotry, like all the other hypocritical claims of the Left, goes only one way. The claim is used when the Left is in an inferior position with regard to political power, and plays upon the basic good will of the people to bring about destructive social change, and elevate the Left to power. Once the Left gets into power, as they increasingly are nowadays, the “tolerance” goes out the window, because the Left does not possess the basic good will of the people it now controls.

  • MarcAlcan

    The cry of bigotry is nothing more than ad hominem by the left. When they run out of reason and well thought out arguments, they resort to this hoping that we can be bullied into silence once they cry “bigot”.

    I think it is about time that every time that is used, we turn it on it’s head and tell it like it is – that it is nothing more than an instrument of bullying by the intellectually weak.

    • fredx2

      It is their profound wish that no one in the future can ever ascribe morality to sexual acts. This is their great cause and campaign. When one makes a judgment about homosexuality, they are judging the correctness or incorrectness of certain sexual acts.

      Their profound desire is that anyone making moral judgments about sexual acts should be considered a bigot.

      This of course makes no sense at all and fundamentally changes society.


    From the left comes the charge of ‘bigotry’.

    From the right comes the charge of ‘stupidity’.

    That works for me.

    • John200

      I think one should argue directly the charge of ‘bigotry,’ and forcefully since the charge is false. To concede any kind of equivalency, or simply to swap insults, is to give away too much, since — again — the charge is false.

      Let the left choke on it. Help them to choke on it. Teach them why they are choking on it. Then we might get somewhere.

      The sequence is justice first, then comes mercy.

      • TERRY

        Good point. I hereby withdraw my smartass remark and yield to a better idea.

  • Seamrog

    It is no small thing that an accusation of bigotry now comes with serious consequences.

    Today, a career can be ruined in a skinny minute.

    Tomorrow, a serious fine or penalty.

    Next week, prison.

  • Anne

    The distinctions given that render women unfit for the priesthood have always been cultural, not inherent in a woman’s sexual nature. But culturally determined ideas about sex have certainly played their part. From the earliest centuries of Christianity, women were called descendants of Eve, prone to seduction and morally and intellectually inferior to men. But the idea that they cannot serve on the altar in place of Christ because they don’t resemble Jesus genitally is a modern invention, traditional only in the sense of being negative. If women are truly and eternally unfit for the role, the theolgically correct rationale for all seasons has yet to be found.

    • JP

      Christ was a Jew. As Saint Paul wrote, Christ’s priesthood descends from the long line of priests beginning with Melchizedek. Christ did not come to destroy the law, but complete it. God ordained a male priesthood from the very beginning. And when you speak of culture, you haven’t a clue what cultures made up the many regions of the Roman Empire. Pagan Greece had priestesses of a sort – they were temple prostitutes. Your line of thinking is closer to the Pagans than Christianity.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        Jesus Christ is also fully God and was not subject to the ‘time’ He chose to come and institute His Church on Earth. He knew exactly what He was doing and why. Your place as a Catholic is to be obedient to Him and His Church.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Priestesses were very common in antiquity. The most revered shrine in the ancient world was the temple of Phoebus Apollo at Delphi, where the oracle was uttered by the Pythean priestess. Plato speaks of the priestesses of Dordona, a shrine of Zeus, who “in their frenzies have conferred great benefits on Hellas, both in public and private life, but in their senses, few or none.” There were priestesses, too, in the Eleusian Mysteries.

        In Latin, “Sacerdos” = priest is common gender; the prohibition on women offering sacrifice by night, except when celebrating the rites of the Good Goddess would make no sense, if women were not permitted to offer sacrifice at all. That the Vestal Virgins were priestesses is affirmed by Gaius, a very careful jurist. Vergil represents the Sibyl at Cumae as offering sacrifice.

        • And?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            I was enlarging on JP’s remark that “Pagan Greece had priestesses of a sort – they were temple prostitutes.”

            • Oh. I take it that was not an endorsement?

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                What it does show is that there was nothing in the social position of women in the ancient world that prevented their being priests. The reason for the all-male Jewish and Christian priesthoods must be sought elsewhere. The prevelance of priestesses completely discredits this contention and suggests that its proponents are either ignorant themselves of classical sources or assume that we are.

                The Institutes of Gaius are very instructive here. He tells us that the perpetual guardianship of women never applied to the Vestals, “on account of the dignity of the priesthood,” but that, since a rescript of the deified Claudius, all women could choose their own guardians and change them as often as they pleased, so that the guardianship was now a mere formality. He notes a rescript of the same emperor that allowed the Flaminia Dialis, the wife of the Flamen Dialis and who herself seems to have had certain priestly functions, to be married to him “ad sacra tantum” – for ritual purposes only; for legal purposes, she remained a single woman.

                In short, there were no legal, social or cultural reasons to prevent the Christian church from appointing priestesses.

    • GaudeteMan

      Its not an us vs. them issue. NO ONE has a right to be a priest. 100% of women cannot be priests – 99% of men cannot be priests. Many are called, few are chosen. Your gripe is with God himself who chose men, not women to be Alter Christi. Nor is it a biological issue – it is metaphysical. The priest has to be first and foremost humble. He sacrifices all to be the receptacle for all of humanities spiritual filth. It is not a matter of who is worthy or deserving. Men could shake their fists at Heaven and ask why women alone can birth children. Arguably the spiritual desolation and agony that faithful priests of God suffer for His sake are nothing anyone would rationally choose. By way of analogy, your position is tantamount to a mathematician lobbying for square circles. Women priests will never be because it is an impossibility. Go to the Cross, bend the knee and pray for peace in your soul.

    • Augustus

      Your objection to Church teaching on women’s ordination is in fact cultural with its origins in modern feminism. If you began your analysis with Christian premises rather than feminist ones, you would come to a different conclusion. If you are willing to allow your preconceived notions to be challenged, I recommend “Women in the Priesthhood?” by Fr. Manfred Hauke published by Ignatius Press, though likely sold out by now. It was his dissertation, perhaps the definitive work on the subject. He teaches at the University of Augsburg. May I also remind you that theology and thus the Church’s understanding of Christian revelation develops over time. A nineteenth-century insight about ordination is no less legitimate than a third century one as long as it compliments the tradition rather than contradicts it.

    • HartPonder

      Thankfully, the Mission of the Church, the reason why we even exist as a Church; proclaiming God’s Kingdom and conversion of the Nations (Matthew 28, 19,20, Acts 20:20, Luke, Etc.,), can be carried out by men and women. Arguably one of the most important aspects of our ministry, for no conversions, no baptisms, no mass. The Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, we all have a share in the work we have been given and that we pray for daily. The “Sacred Service” of works as mentioned in the letter of James, we all can all have a part in.

      At some Masses, not just the Traditional, I am impressed with the fact as a Parish, the priest mostly faces not an audience of people, but we all face the Living God, through the Cross, a provision of grace so as to equip us for the work at hand.

      I would prayerfully reflect what our motives are as we decern each of our roles in God’s Household.

    • Carol Leeda Crawford

      I have met several women who are professed religious who believe women should be allowed to ascend to the Alter as priests. ALL, 100% of them hold opinions that favoured same sex marriage, homosexuality as acceptable behaviour, and most of them supported abortion as a choice. We are called as women to obedience and acceptance of the churches teaching on Faith and Morals. Personally, as a women and a fond reader of scripture, I appreciate and respect God the Father’s choice to give the priesthood to men. Yes, there are priests (men) who like these dissident women hold opinions contrary to the moral law given to us by God and affirmed by Christ. I am praying for their conversion, because I am concerned for their souls. I thank God the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church has remained faithful to the priesthood for men only.

    • GG

      I love how you make genitals into some arbitrary finding like eye color. That is a postmodern ideology.

    • fredx2

      Whenever one is reduced to discussing “genitals” we know they are not interested in thinking the problem through. When one claims that the all male priesthood is a “modern invention”, we know they are not interested in factual reality.

      The fact that all churches with women priests are collapsing and splitting and fading into irrelevance surely means something.

    • Anthony Zarrella

      Sure it has been found, Anne, you just don’t like it. And in another sense, however, you’re right – it’s not about inherent unfitness. Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The Church is agnostic on the question of whether women are *ontologically capable* of becoming priests (that is, whether their inherent nature is *compatible* with ordination). However, “the Church has no *authority* whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”
      In other words, “ordination of women” is different from “gay marriage” – the former is a real concept that is simply not permitted to the Church by the Law of God, whereas the latter is a meaningless phrase that refers to an impossible contradiction.
      Jesus instituted the Sacraments, including that of Ordination. In doing so, He only ordained men, and His ordained Apostles only ordained men. Therefore, we know that He did not give His Church the *authority* to ordain women.
      This is not a matter of “equality” or of “fairness.” It is a matter of obedience to God’s Law. If you have a problem with Jesus’s decision to restrict the Sacrament of Ordination to men, then call *Him* a chauvinist or a bigot… if you dare. (And I hope you don’t – blasphemy is not something to play around with.)

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      I have not heard one convincing or logical reason that justifies an all-male priesthood. If men and women are ontologically equal, than they’re equally equipped to be called to the priesthood.

      • ColdStanding

        Holy Mother Church has infallibly declared, in a way that leaves not room for the slightest equivocation, that only male Catholics can take Holy Orders for the priesthood.

        If you had faith, that would be more than enough to settle it.

        Don’t like the answer? See the last line for where the problem lays.

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          It’s not your place to judge my faith. I am entitled to both my opinion and my faith.

          • ColdStanding

            It is an objective standard that trumps your private judgement.

            You are not entitled to anything. You are a child of wrath. A rebel against God’s will. You can take the peace God gives you on His terms and His terms alone or not at all.

            This is true for all. It is an objective truth. Your subjective opinion is of no account.

            That’s the way the cookie crumbles. Like it or lump it.

            • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

              I have the peace of God. Your uncharitable remarks suggest that you are the one full of wrath and in need of peace.

              • ColdStanding

                Ha! No. You don’t know your faith. Which means that to claim you have the peace of God is probably a delusion. Typically, that peace you speak of is only attained by the just in Heaven. Hey, don’t take it hard. There is lots to learn. It is the very basis of repentance is to understand that we are all children of wrath. Ephesians 2:3. Keep at it.


          • Atilla The Possum

            Oh, here we go! The topic on this thread is ”bigot” and now we have that other lingo-bingo favourite: ”judge”.
            Cliché, cliché, cliché, cliché! That just about sums you up.

          • ForChristAlone

            Church teaching has nothing to do with your opinions. It is more a matter of humilty

      • ForChristAlone

        look to Christ and the nuptial meaning of the body

    • ForChristAlone

      Yet another Catholic headed to the CofE

    • Monica

      Hello Anne. I keep reading your comment over and over again and nothing you said makes any sense to me.

  • publiusnj

    The author is right in writing: “technocratic commercial and bureaucratic institutions…would like to do away with distinctions that support the functioning of competing institutions, such as the family. ” The chief bureaucratic institution, of course, is the Government and the Government hates the family because its chief goal is its preservation in power. That means the office holders need to get re-elected. The best way to get re-elected is to buy the next election, but that costs money. Paying entire families enough to get their votes is a very expensive proposition indeed. It’s cheaper to divide and conquer. So, getting wives to think their interests different from their husbands is a way to retained power, if the women (who constitute a majority of the population) can be made to distrust their family relationship. So back in the 1960s, Liberalized Divorce, followed by various benefits given almost exclusively to women who are the modern day saints (i.e., “single mothers”), followed by memes about the war on women, etc.

    Of course, the Government doesn’t rely only on women; it has defined other “minorities” that will also be given preferential rights and thus co-opted into “the coming majority” to overthrow the “old Christian white boys’ network” that has been identified as attackable whatever the normal rules about no bigotry. As in Obama prejudicially taking the side of Henry Louis Gates over the white Cambridge cop. Or Obama taking Trayvon Martin’s side in the Sanford FL dispute. Or after Obama’s second embarrassment, Holder’s initially taking the side of that supposedly “Gentle Giant” Michael (“You’re too much of a pussy to Shoot Me”) Brown against the recently vindicated Darrell Wilson.

    The freedom people have to disregard bigotry against Male Christians is being shown once more in News Treatment of the ISIS Jihad Against Christians. I have heard people, including Bill O’Reilly, actually claim that while the assault on Christians is bad enough, it is even worse because many of the victims are “women and children.” Somehow, the beheading of 21 Christian men on TV isn’t necessarily the ultimate savagery it should be considered unless the victims include “women and children.” IOW, WE ARE BEING CONDITIONED TO ACCEPT THE BIGOTRY THE GOVERNMENT FAVORS.

    • Gentle Giant” Michael (“You’re too much of a pussy to Shoot Me”) Brown against the recently vindicated Darrell Wilson.

      See if Michael Brown had just been exposed to the V**gina Monologues, he wouldn’t have made such a statement. Obviously, Brown is the victim of a sexist hegemony.

  • JERD2

    The root of our social dysfunction is society’s incapacity to distinguish between the hate of bigotry, and the joy in the distinctions found in God’s creation — those unique gifts conferred on all parts of God’s creation which allow for beauty and love.

    The result is a bland and passive humanity; the differences among persons in mind, heart and body washed clean by social and legal pressures. A kind of sameness overtakes all persons. The individual becomes subordinate to and is subsumed in the collective.

    The solution to this problem is unity in Christ. This is a truly radical paradox: Unity giving rise to individuality.

  • Steve Frank

    “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others” (James 3:1)

    Seems odd to me that so many women would be clamoring for a position of authority in the church that will bring them under a much stricter standard of judgment. I have a hard time believing that the women holding those “ordain women” signs really believe what James said here. Most of them probably don’t care about the eternal souls of others, nor even their own eternal souls. What’s happened is they have been seduced by our culture’s idol of radical egalitarianism where any impediment for “career advancement” for a woman is anathema since it’s supposedly depriving her of her “rights” to pursue a career in any field she desires. But being a priest or minister should not be regarded as a “career” as the world looks at it. It’s a solemn responsibility for the souls of others, not an opportunity for self advancement. But the present climate is such that Western culture, including much of the church, has decided that life is all about us and our agendas, not God and his agenda. So it’s no surprise to see these people demanding their “rights” to be priests and ministers.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Who ever condemns the most bigoted nation of all – Japan. A country that has the audacity to remain completely – Japanese.

    • dennodog

      Maybe they have something there.

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        It is called normal humanity.

        • dennodog


  • Some bigotry is righteous: Nazism is an intolerable opinion. I am a bigot about Nazism.

    For the charge to be negative, one must prove my intolerance is irrational.

    Jesus was bigoted against self-righteousness.

    Bigotry has its place, as does hate and fear.

    The Leftists can froth at the mouth all they want – they have no case as to why certain bigotry is objectively wrong.

    • .
      If it’s rational, then it’s not bigoted, by definition.

      • No, the word does not necessitate anything about the rationality of the sentiment. If somebody rejects and has intolerance towards traditional Christian morality for no other reason than echoing the hatred of his peers, you could say objectively there are rational grounds for rejecting traditional biblical norms, but one needn’t be informed of those reasons to adopt the position. The intolerance of another’s view in favor of one’s own view is the substance of bigotry, whether or not the rational basis is known.

        Bigotry, in other words, may or may not be justified. But it doesn’t change the what bigotry is in itself. It is by itself morally neutral.

        Apply this to “hate” and “intolerance” — both morally neutral things until reason and virtue are applied.

  • SnowCherryBlossoms

    I absolutely detest this modern feminist movement. It is demonic. It is harsh, demanding, demeaning, obstinate, belligerent, disgusting, self-centered and very anti-woman. God is in no way pleased with this and it is harmful to the Church, the family and society.

    • Oh yes, the Sex and the City generation that has taught their daughters to be safe when they won’t inevitably be good. Screw like guys and you’ll have the same empowerment.

      I thank God I have no daughters, not because they aren’t blessings — but because the world is cruel towards women. Feminists have lost their battle, and they turned the gun to their own heads.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        I taught my daughter the value in following the teachings of Christ and the Church and wait until she was married, she listened and she is now the mother of 6 and counting has a wonderful marriage and a beautiful family!

        • What a blessing. I know there is a faithful contigent against the institutionalized leftist hatred of women.

          • SnowCherryBlossoms

            Yes, this hatred is destroying and blinding women to their true gifts of being women! It’s so evil and destructive! I don’t why the women who are involved in these things and cheering it on have allowed themselves to be so blinded and why are they so angry? Everyone is so angry these days!

            • That’s what the West has become: an angry, rebellious teen-ager throwing fits.

              • SnowCherryBlossoms

                Exactly! lol

              • jacobum

                It’s not the angry fits that’s the issue. The real problem is these teenagers never grow up to be responsible adults.

                • SnowCherryBlossoms

                  Very true!

                • Atilla The Possum

                  They are the ones who always say ‘lessons will be learned’ … and they’re not!

                • Paddy

                  Look at Cardinal Timothy Weakling comparing Irish patriots to ISIS as he frolics with Gays in a once-sacred parade. He needs to be retired early.

                  • jacobum

                    From you lips to God’s ears. Then again we must also be careful what we pray for. As bad as he is we could do a lot worse with a PF appointment. Cupich in Chicago proves that.

              • Atilla The Possum

                … and hissy, stroppy fits at that!

        • jacobum

          Outstanding. You are and you have raised a true “feminist” in the best sense of the word. May God continue to bless you.

          • SnowCherryBlossoms

            Oh thank you! That was really a nice compliment!

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          It is wonderful that your daughter is happy with her life, but her choice would not suit every woman and is certainly not the only decent choice available to women. My daughter, who also follows the teachings of Christ, is studying to be a physician. She is happy and will, in her profession, have the opportunity to help and heal many people. In that respect, she can be said to be following in Christ’s footsteps. It is feminism that has made this path possible for her. Some people have very narrow perceptions of “feminism.” I don’t think my strong, successful, self-confident daughter is doing anything “demeaning, belligerent, self-centered, anti-woman, harmful to the Church, the family, and society, or threatening to her own salvation.” I’m pretty darn proud of her.

          • MarkRutledge

            Is it indeed feminism which made the path possible for her? I don’t believe that assertion is supported by the historical record. Percentage of women earning degrees, including medical degrees, began growing noticeably in the 1940s and continues to grow. The reason behind this was the changing lifestyle of the American family as a result of technology.

          • “It is feminism that has made this path possible ”

            Hard work and focus have nothing to do with her academic or professional efforts. On the other hand a political movement that says men and woman are equal, now give me special protections in such things as government contracts or workplace rules is really what propels her. Glory be to Gloria Steinem.

            If your evaluation of your daughter as “strong, successful, self-confident” (exactly what is “self-confident” anyway?) is true and she takes herself out of the gene pool or is part of a trend where such women reduce their contribution to the gene pool (through delayed or reduced motherhood), then yes it hurts the Church, the family and society.

            It’s not the most overtly intellectual movie out there, but “Idiocracy” does certainly make one think about the effects of a world where the only people that reproduce are the ones that are thoughtless. We are systematically degrading our genetic endowment for the sake of transient and vain concerns.



            I’m sure you’ll tell me HuffPo is a charter member of the VRWC, right?

            • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

              Excuse me, but you are talking about eugenics and selective breeding. Women are not brood mares to be forced into reproducing. That choice is their own. As for our genetic endowment being “degraded,” the average IQ increases by 3-4 points per decade, which is why the tests keep having to be renormed. Women like MY daughter are real contributors to society.

              • No I am not talking about (intentional) Eugenics by unintentional dysgenics and not selective breeding, but selective withdrawal. I resent and reject your dishonest attempt to conflate my concerns with Margaret Sanger.

                IQ scores are decreasing, not increasing on an uninflated basis, sorry to tell you. Here’s two more articles discussing the phenomenon.



                Now sorry to burst your bubble, but your daughter is no more a “real contributor” to society than anybody else who gets up and does their job. Of course, she’s not quite a finished product yet, so your declarations are a bit premature. Quite frankly she’s got a long way to go before her accomplishments match my wife’s-whose been an RN for almost 20 years.
                There’s women on this board who are educated and accomplished and have raised several children. They are the “real contributors to society”, your apparent disdain for domesticity and natal indifference not withstanding.

                Here’s a little newsflash for you-you, me and your daughter are all going to die. Unless she has children, in 100 years, she’ll just be another example of a dead bloodline. The mothers (and dads)n this board? Well as they say, the hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world.

                Quite frankly, your vicarious pride is a little like that of a stage mom.

                • ForChristAlone

                  “Vicarious” – that’s the word I was looking for when she described her daughter’s lofty achievements.

                • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                  You are wrong about IQs decreasing. Look up the Flynn effect. Try to be logical. If it’s OK for SnowCherryBlossoms to be proud of her daughter without being attacked, it’s OK for me to be proud of mine without being attacked. And who’s to say my daughter won’t have children? Or that being a brood mare is the only thing that gives women worth? Or gives men worth? Is every priest, nun, infertile person, or life-long virgin failing to contribute to society? There are many ways to contribute, and it’s not your place to judge them.

                  • I’ve given you four seperate sources to document the counter premise, and I’m not much into being a woodpecker in a petrified forest. Believe what you want.

                    You are not proud of your daughter, you are prematurely boastful, imbuing her with heroic qualities, before she’s even completed her training.
                    ou also took an implicit shot at SCB, by stating Women like MY daughter are real contributors to society.

                    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                      This is barely worth a reply. I figured out very quickly that you’re just an angry windbag with little to say, which is why I didn’t read the first part of a previous post. But I will defend my daughter. Yes, she will definitely be a very real contributor to society. I am not passing judgment on anyone else’s wives/children in the process. If you want to believe physicians don’t contribute to society, but your RN wife does, that’s fine. You’re flat wrong about IQs declining. Study the Flynn effect. I’ve worked on parts of the WISC and know what I’m talking about. If I am being “boastful” about my daughter, but you and SCB aren’t “boasting” about family members, I assume you’re simply jealous. You sound as though you have a chip on your shoulder about the MD vs RN thing, which is silly. Every health care professional is valuable. You and others here seem to think a woman’s role is to produce children rather than have a successful career. Many couples manage both. Do you and your RN wife, who has been in the business for 20 years, have any children? It’s funny how often people who want to limit the role of women to child bearing are so often childless themselves or only have one or two children.

                    • “This is barely worth a reply.”

                      But yet you cannot resist couching your itinerant screeds as replies, despite declaring you aren’t reading the posts.

                      “angry windbag with little to say”

                      Project much?

                      “But I will defend my daughter.”

                      Your daughter requires no defense, because she’s not at issue here, except for the fact that you are using her as a rhetorical foil and diminishing her efforts while strangely enough while snapping your suspenders.

                      “You sound as though you have a chip on your shoulder about the MD vs RN thing, which is silly.”

                      Not at all, I have both professions in my family. If you weren’t so boastful about medical school, I wouldn’t need to point out that there’s other professions that work in concert with physicians that contribute to successful health outcomes and also make “real contributions” to society.

                      “Do you and your RN wife, who has been in the business for 20”
                      I wrote almost 20, apparently you didn’t read that, either.

                      “have any children?”

                      Nobody should advertise the existence of children, unless they are grown adults who consent to having their existence made known and are armed or otherwise capable of self-defense.

                      You can draw whatever inferences you want from that statement. I will not comment further.

                      “It’s funny how often people who want to limit the role of women to child bearing are so often childless themselves or only have one or two children.”

                      So far, I count one on your part. Perhaps if you had more children, you’d be less dismissive and contemptuous of those that devote themselves to the most important job in the world. You want to eat your seed corn, go right ahead, just don’t cry when there’s no harvest next fall.

                    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                      Whatever. I’m sorry you resent my daughter’s success so much. I better not make things worse by telling you about all my other kids:-P

                    • Thanks so much for restraining yourself.

            • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

              “Hard work and focus have nothing to do with her academic or professional efforts. On the other hand a political movement that says men and woman are equal, now give me special protections in such things as government contracts or workplace rules is really what propels her. ”
              Oh, give me a break?? I didn’t read this on my first pass, but this is the biggest load of BS I’ve read in ages. This illustrates the bigotry women still face. Hard work, focus, and smarts have everything to do with my daughter’s academic and professional efforts. Her SATs, MCATs, and GPAs have all been way above average for the very selective school she attends. She is performing at a much higher level than the majority of her male colleagues. You, sir, are profoundly bigoted.

              • Its amazing that in you rush to false martyrdom, you completely missed the OBVIOUS sarcasm-I attribute the efforts of ANYBODY going through a difficult and demanding program to hard work.
                You are the one diminishing those efforts, not me.

          • ForChristAlone

            She wasn’t talking about what job she could find but about preserving her virginity before marriage as something to be cherished. If you can say the same for your daughter, you too would have cause to rejoice – more so than in the choice of a job.

        • ForChristAlone

          Actually, from a man’s point of view the prize catch is finding a wife who is a virgin. She is most desired among men.

          It’s interesting at there used to be an order of virgins in the Church. It was once a highly prized and laudable vocation.

        • Simple & Plain

          Amazing. I hope I can someday teach my children the same, and implore them not to be like I was.

          • SnowCherryBlossoms

            This is why my children listened to me. I made so many mistakes and I used this to teach my kids the dire outcome of my choices…they respected this and by the grace of God, for once history did not repeat itself! I sacrificed everything to bring them up in the Truth and they grew up not having to go down that same painful road I did. God is merciful and He did everything to help my kids along 🙂

      • Simple & Plain


        They’ve built this system which they think beats down the patriarchy and empowers women. Of course, men have also been doing the same thing:

        – Dress nearly naked, so that others in society can lust over you and make you into an object, but say that you’re not an object and that others should respect you.
        – Have random sexual encounters with whomever you want and define your own sexuality. Get experience because you don’t want to end up with someone who can’t please you in bed.
        – March through the streets in lingerie (or topless) demanding respect and to not be called a ‘slut’ because you control your own sexuality.
        – Give into any and every lust you have. Sex, possessions, money, masturbation, use of others.
        – Be free and comfortable to use your sexuality as your own and end the lives of ‘mistakes’, and pump possibly hazardous chemicals into your body to have that sexual freedom.

        Note: Not claiming a holier-than-though against people in our culture. I’ve willingly indulged in it, but I’ve learned the truth and am trying hard to be born anew.

    • fredx2

      Really, their feminism is an almighty worship and desire for masculinization of everyone.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        Why would they want to masculinize everyone, not sure I know what that would mean for women? I see it more as a twisting and perverting what God ordered and created? The devil seems to be doing this with everything!

        • It’s more of a different sort of envy, I believe identified by Freud. (Five letters, starts with a “p”)

          • SnowCherryBlossoms

            Are you sure that’s what he meant?? I wish I would not have edited my original question to fredx2..now I don’t recall what I asked, his comment was confusing. I guess if the envy is all about a body part they’ll all end up getting sex changes..what insanity. I feel like I woke up and found myself in the twilight zone! Sick!

            • Are you sure that’s what he meant??
              I think so. I don’t completely by everything concocted by Freud, he had an unfortunate affinity for a certain white powder.

              • SnowCherryBlossoms


              • Trazymarch

                “Ironically, they seem angrier at women that remain domestic or natal. ”
                No idea how is it with american feminists but here maternity among feminists is deemed something backwards. And I bet this topic isn’t very popular to write about.

                • It about the same here

    • blablabla

      I was called to be a feminist. I’ve been told I should repent because of it.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        Who called you and what exactly were you called to do?

        • blablabla

          I’m quite sure it wasn’t Satan, since I don’t know exactly who Satan is. Well little girls look up to me, and I need to protect them. They often ask me questions in Church about God, and I do my best to enlighten them.

          • Who protects them from you?

            • blablabla

              Many people who know me don’t find me a threat. I’m just a normal person. However, I realize that feminists are not welcomed into many religion but the Anglican Church can be a viable option.

              • Veritas

                I’m trying to figure out who you are.

                If you are in fact a normal person, then I can eliminate Gloria Allred from my list of guesses.

              • SnowCherryBlossoms

                In what way do you consider yourself a feminist?

                • blablabla

                  It’s personal. Sorry I can’t answer that as that is between God and myself. On that note, good day.

                  • GG

                    Huh ?

                  • SnowCherryBlossoms

                    So your original comment was simply pointless. Good grief, all of this for what?

                  • Atilla The Possum

                    Caught bang to rights!

              • John O’Neill

                Good point; why don’t the radical feminists in this picture (above) go to the Anglican or Episcopalian churches where they are welcomed and may some day become the Archbishop of Canterbury or pope? Is it because their real agenda is destroying the Roman Catholic Church.? Most likely they are publicity whores who know that the Catholic hating American media are only too ready to plaster their pictures on the news services of the demonic American World State.

                • musicacre

                  Rad fems are usually “against” something, not “for” building up the healthy culture that continues into the next century..

              • Lol! Try every mainline Protestant denomination.

                You’d *love* the UCC – they’re all about feminist theology. But the PECUSA, ELCA, PCUSA, UMC, and tons of non-denominational churches would have you in their ranks. They feed off people like you.

                • Atilla The Possum


                • blablabla

                  I’m looking forward to a Church that preaches something other than a pregnancy plan. I can’t wait until spring comes so I can finally once again go outside and stop watching catholic tv, and avoid internet all together. It’s become so boring, that I have become sick of listening to the same o, same o. I hope these churches you mentioned can offer something other than the Catholic Church-that’s all I’m asking for. I’m quite sure other women feel the same way. I’m looking forward to the Holy Week in the Anglican Church, I hope the preaching won’t be about motherhood but about the Passion of Christ.

                  • SnowCherryBlossoms

                    If you can leave the Catholic Church and go be a member of a man-made church then my guess is you were never serious about following Christ in the first place. I’ll pray for you.

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    The comments are often very angry and border on antisocial, but please don’t assume all Catholics think the same way. The Holy Father himself just said that we don’t all need to “breed like rabbits.” If you go to a Catholic church these days, you won’t see many huge families. Few Catholic couples have more than three children. Catholicism is so much more than forced birth. It covers a wealth of teaching on social justice, including the environment, mercy, and many other issues.

                • Gene

                  say rather that we see the quality and value of the stones that other builders foolishly cast away. In the process, we ordain some of the finest and most talented ministers of word and sacrament in the world, women who were told their gender prevented them from doing they now do so well, for the glory of God, and aid of their fellow women and men in the Church.
                  “feed off”? No. Welcome and allow to fulfill the potential of what God has called them to be and give them, if they can handle the academic, linguistic and theological studies needed, pulpits from which to preach and proclaim the Glory of God. yes.

                  which, I will add, is why about 1/4 of my congregation, was raised Catholic. Including one of our male, and two of our female pastors.

              • “Many people who know me don’t find me a threat.”
                It should be all.

            • Atilla The Possum

              Special Branch …

          • SnowCherryBlossoms

            What are you talking about? That doesn’t make any sense to me…

          • Atilla The Possum

            Hold up! Hell is missing a devil … I don’t know, Ole Red Legs isn’t getting the staff these days and hanging onto them. He’s turning them into travelling salespeople…
            In that case – we’re not interested in your rubbish so … DO ONE!

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      There are many parts of the world where women are still deprived of their humanity. Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive, and women and girls are still subjected to acid violence, genital mutilation, arranged marriage, sexual violence, educational discrimination, physical abuse, and honor killings. Both men and women should be supporting global feminism to overcome this problem.

      • How about supporting global Christian humanism. Feminism is ugly.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        I don’t believe you and I are discussing the same thing here. I am talking about the women who will do anything to go against the Catholic Church, this would include women ordination, the use of birth control be allowed, abortion allowed…on and on. That women around the world want to fight against abuse is an entirely different matter and that is not feminism! This fight you just spoke of is for basic human rights and has nothing to do with radical feminism…why would you even compare these two?

      • No, they should be supporting global sanity.

      • ForChristAlone

        The hundreds of thousands of progressive Alinskyites should begin their evangelizing among the Muslims first. Then they should come back to see the rest of us – all two of them who remain alive.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        But how does that connect to the American/west European feminist movement, which sprang from highly affluent, abundantly leisured, upper middle class circumstances, as most 1960’s protest movements did? When Betty Friedan wrote her 1963 “classic” The Feminine Mystique, and complained about being enslaved in a concentration camp, she was living in just about the poshest suburb in the world in West Chester NY. Thanks to the domestic staff she employed – whose ancestors HAD been real slaves – she had plenty of time to feel sorry for herself and write best-selling books about how hard life was for people in her circumstances. Of course we now know as well that Friedan was less than forthright about her life, since she had been a long-time political activist with an Ivy League degree, and was hardly the frustrated housewife she sought to depict.

        My own experience at the time, when I was in college, enabled me to see the bright-line class divide in stark relief, since I was working as a fork-lift operator and warehouse man at a factor with a number of working class Viet Nam war widows, usually in their mid-20’s and their lives shattered by the death of their husbands. It was at this time that the catchy feminist slogan “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” was coined by Gloria Steinem, another “enslaved” affluent victim.

        My co-workers at the factory didn’t get the joke, needless to say.

    • Simple & Plain

      It’s really quite disturbing how much the evil has drawn them in. It truly pains me to see people who call themselves feminist, advocating for the equal treatment of women, spewing hatred upon Mary and the Holy Rosary. And I mean hate. How strongly the immense hatred of Satan against Mary has permeated the women of our culture and drove them away from who has been truly elevated by God, to be such an important person in our salvation.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        I know, I’ve seen them act like rabid lunatics when it comes to the Blessed Virgin. I’ve heard it all. It’s simply demonic.

        • Simple & Plain

          Truly. The picture The Bible paints of his hatred of her and going after her is literally replayed in real life by them. If anything though, the hatred that we know will come only reinforces the presence of God and importance of Mary.

    • Thomas Sharpe

      i.e. the definition of a hardened feminist is: “one that dislikes being a woman, hates men, and want’s to become that which she hates-”

      No wonder they’re not happy persons.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        They are one of the most miserable groups of people I have ever met! I think it’s as simple as they don’t want to be told what to do..just plain old disobedience.

  • Don Lond

    The “bigotry” issue is primarily just another weapon used by those who would seek domination. I filed it next to racism, insensitive, war on woman, hard-hearted, intolerant, and old-fashioned–all insults to trigger cowering and silence.
    It’s not that they don’t exist, but that the cunning abuse of such weapons are aimed at fallen man’s pride to bring him down lest the truth set him free.

    • .
      They are not insults, they are assessments, and pretty accurate ones by my experience.

      They are not intended to trigger silence; they are intended to encourage self awareness and growth.

      Grow or die.

      Your choice.

      But do not inflict your choices for yourself on others.

      • Trazymarch

        “Bigot” is among this words which are usually just empty insults used to shut down the other person without any meaning whatsoever. The other such words are: “Fascist”, “Commie”, “Nazi”, “Anti-semite”, “Homophobe”, “Transphobe”

        George Orwell, very brilliant Socialist very accurately tore down veil which shrouded “fascist” word :

        “It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely
        meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly
        than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social
        Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922
        Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek,
        homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women,
        dogs and I do not know what else.

        By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous,
        arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for
        the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English
        person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as
        near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

        So… do you by “bigot” mean actually “bully”?

  • In a few years we have already seen soft censorship turn into hard censorship by the secular pop-culture left against the teachings of the Church. Based on the speed of their success I am sorry to say within the next twenty years, or sooner, the faithful will be prosecuted and sent to jail for upholding the holy faith. Pandering politicians have already started crafting laws to punish people whom they have decreed are engaged in “hate speech”. The writing is on the wall, I do not know what can be done to reverse this diabolic tide.

    • “In a few years we have already seen soft censorship turn into hard censorship by the secular pop-culture left against the teachings of the Church.”

      Identify the target, isolate the target, freeze the target..

      Right out of Alinsky…

      • ForChristAlone

        Required reading for all Catholic catechetics: The CCC and “Rules for Radicals”

    • ForChristAlone

      “I am sorry to say within the next twenty years, or sooner, the faithful will be prosecuted and sent to jail for upholding the holy faith. ”

      Isn’t this the exact thing Cardinal George predicted would happen to his successor? Of course, George was right in the principle he enunciated but wrong in the particular, since Cupich is likely to cave the minute the power brokers knock on his door. Progressives are too elitist to go to jail – to say nothing about going to their death for the faith.

  • Tamsin

    at a more theoretical level, it’s odd that such distinctions should have human importance sufficient to determine identity but no rational social or practical significance at all. Have people universally identified themselves all these years by reference to characteristics that are invented or absolutely trivial? And so we have the logical absurdity of men who identify as women at the exact moment in history when what it means to be a woman has been found to be “invented or absolutely trivial.” How does a man identify as a woman, when a woman can identify as a man? Should he wear a gown, or should he wear a tux? Perhaps all you men who identify as men have really gone through intermediate states of identifying as women who identify as men. :/

    In this exploration of gender identity, there’s a whole lot of free-riding going on: explorations can only push off from some mass of humanity that will unreflectingly continue to express characteristics consistent with their biological sex. It’s gnosticism.

    • We’ll be like “Pat” from the old SNL skit.

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        Eww lol!

        • It’s bad enough when life imitates comedic art, but when it imitates farce, then we’re descending the circular vortex in the porcelain throne.

          • Atilla The Possum

            Well put! LOL!

  • Jake Rabas

    I’d rather be in a foxhole with a “bigot” than a “enlightened” secular anti-humanist any day.

    • Atilla The Possum


  • SnowCherryBlossoms

    Why did the serpent go to Eve instead of Adam? Some have said it was because Eve was weaker and therefore an easier target, but I think the answer goes much deeper: Eve was the mother of the living, which drew the attention of the “murderer from the beginning.” Because he hated human life, the devil went after Eve.
    ~Alice Von Hildebrand

  • jacobum

    The feminist have long since become wearisome, tiresome and their bloviating like wolves howling at the moon. With all due respect, my response to them is when they can irrefutably show…”chickens have lips”, “turkeys can fly” and/or “Christ was a women” then the Church will be in a position to consider the ordination of women as priest. In the meantime may I respectfully suggest these “ladies” get back on their brooms and just fly away.

  • I find all the bigotries mentioned in the article pales to the bigotry against suffering human beings, which gives rise to euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty in an effort to put suffering human beings out of our misery.

  • SnowCherryBlossoms

    The definition of Bigotry is bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
    If one stands with absolute Truth as revealed by Christ and won’t bend is that person a bigot? NO.
    If one defies absolute Truth and calls those who refuse to agree with their opinion bigots are they correct? No. They are in fact the Bigots and the victim of their bigotry is Christ Himself.

  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

    George Bernard Shaw described a barbarian as one who “thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.” That’s a pretty good definition of bigotry too.

  • JP

    Over at OnePeterFive there was is an essay written by Elliot Bougis concerning Papal Authority vs Papal Power. In it he quoted Joyce Little (who used, Hannah Arendt’s 1958 essay, “What Was Authority?”):

    “Those endowed with authority were the elders … who had obtained it by
    descent and by transmission (tradition) from those who had laid the
    foundation for all things to come, the ancestors, whom the Romans
    therefore called the maiores [or “greater ones”]. The
    authority of the living was always a derivative, depending upon … the
    authority of the founders who no longer were among the living. …
    As long as this tradition was uninterrupted, authority was inviolate; and to
    act without authority and tradition, without accepted, time-honored
    standards and models, without the help of the wisdom of the founding
    father, was inconceivable.”

    Papal and Vatican authority is always backward looking, with a firm eye fixed on the founding. For, if Bougis is correct, Papal Authority is a slave to not only Tradition, but to Chirst, from which all Tradition flows. From this point of view, feminists and modernists critiques (and their desired reforms) are not only poisonous, but evil. For what Modernists and Feminists desire is not authority but power. And power has nor wishes any Master.

  • James Scott

    The pope is a poopie head and atheists are couch potatoes.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    Telling the truth which many don’t want to hear is also called bigotry. Those who try to make known the true nature of mahomedanism and that it is not a “religion of peace” and never have been, despite what the two most recent American Presidents have said, and try to warn fellow citizens of its dangers are called bigots.
    As for women and the Church, my opinion is that the Church should be doing a lot more in order to get more men actively involved in it, as there is already a vast majority of women and the danger that many men may see the Church as a women’s affair.

    • ForChristAlone

      The dirty little secret that few are willing to admit is that women actually run the Church. If politics is about the use of power and all politics is local, then at the local ecclesial level – the parish – it is women who have the power because it is they who run things at the parish.. Take a look next time you happen to be at your parish.

    • SnowCherryBlossoms

      I completely agree. True about Islam and true about women running the parishes. The MEN need to start acting like men again and put a stop to all of this! If the men don’t start stepping up the void will be filled by radical feminist women.
      As far as Islam goes, it needs to be removed from Countries that are not Islamic or again, the void will be filled by them.
      Both are threats to Society. AS we are so CLEARLY seeing.

  • bty

    Small point on the almost universally misunderstood exegesis of Gal. 3:28. Paul’s concern in Galatians is access to God’s grace and favor as now available in Christ such that the distinctions made in the Law regarding that access, for which being a Greek (pagan), a slave or a woman were all in their different ways impediments, is no longer relevant. He certainly is not saying that these distinctions somehow evaporate, but rather that they no longer make a difference for access to God.

    • .
      “Left” and “bigot” would be an oxymoron, an anachronism, a contradiction in terms.

      “left” = by each individual themselves.

      “bigot” = by god, literally.

      • Trazymarch

        “”Left” and “bigot” would be an oxymoron, an anachronism, a contradiction in terms.”

        “It’s not hate speech if we do it.” That’s what you really meant.

  • I’m amazed that those who wish for women ordinations in the Catholic Church don’t push the Jews, Muslims and Hindus to do the same. None of these religions have female clergy.

    • .
      I’m amazed that you think someone in their own home should clean up someone else’s house first before being considered acceptable for consideration.

  • Johnny Rango

    I used to read Crisis decades ago, back when it was called Fidelity. My Dad had a subscription. I found every issue fascinating reading for its consistent tone of cool, smug vindictiveness toward manifold cultural enemies. Editors and contributing writers seemed motivated less by genuine Christian compassion than a cultic schadenfreude toward the world and the Church’s many errors. I can see nothing much has changed from then to now. “Is this Catholicism”? I used to wonder. For some, apparently so. Just how many though, I continue to wonder.

    • Trazymarch

      Oh I wanted to answer to you. Too bad you edited ( or editor did) your comment.

    • .
      Yer point?

      • Johnny Rango

        l wrote something, changed my mind about posting it, found I couldn’t delete it, so I wrote something innocuous its place. Hope this answers your question.

  • .
    Ahh, some of us are just never going to get it.

    Our prejudice, our dependence on our own personal, preordained ‘dictionary’ or ‘encyclopedia’ of how we’ve been indoctrinated to think the world ‘is’ or ‘ought’ to be is just so ingrained as to be invisible to ourselves.

    It’s not about making “… distinctions on grounds that are normally forbidden, for example race and sex, as long as the effect is to disrupt the social effect of such distinctions in general. That is the meaning of “affirmative action.” [ sic * ] …”

    No, it’s not about that.

    It’s about equivalent consideration.

    When someone comes up to us and engages us in dialog, and we first do a “drop your pants” genitals check before considering them ‘worthy’ of our attention, that’s hateful bigotry.

    When any one of us thinks “… the interests of technocratic commercial and bureaucratic institutions … would like to do away with distinctions that support the functioning of competing institutions, such as the family …” we are seeing an imaginary conflict made up of our own irresponsibility and blaming others for our own faults.

    It’s not those institutions, but we-the-people individuals who have empowered those institutions to act in our stead — in order to form a more perfect union, we-the-people express collective power to overcome individual weakness.

    * “affirmative action” is defined and practiced most accurately as actively going outside one’s own exclusive socioeconomic and cultural microcosm to include those normally and prejudicially excluded, and has nothing to do specifically with race, sex, or quotas, but, as Jesus would probably do, has everything to do with active inclusivity.

  • Vernon Knight

    For two thousand years later, no one and not EVEN the POPE….has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent since CHRIST was fully MAN!

    • .
      You mean the women popes?

      How about the lay popes who had their ‘whores’ entertain at dinner?

  • Terry Mushroom

    I have occasionally wondered why Jesus, who could heal the sick, raise the dead and rise again on the third day, was unable to do anything about the social mores of his day to have women priests in the Church he founded.

    • Simple answer Terry, is that it was not God’s intention in the first place.

      There are some people who theorise that if Jesus was born in the 20th Century, he wouldn’t have been curtailed by social norms and would have female priests.

      See what the Bible says about when Jesus came into the world – in the fullness of time. This means when the time was right. If the 20th Century was the right time, nothing could have stopped God from being born then.

      The entire Old Testament (and New Testament) show how Yahweh, never was constrained by culture. He always told the Israelites they were not to follow the cultures around them but to be the beacon.

      • Terry Mushroom

        James, I agree! I was being ironic.

        • .
          Then you were being ignorant or worse, willfully stupid.


          And bigoted.

          • Terry Mushroom

            If you wish, I would be happy to politely respond if you me gave your reasons for telling me that I’m “ignorant…wilfully stupid…sexist and bigoted”. If you did, perhaps you’re not aware that they have not appeared in your posting. Perhaps it’s the same glitch that makes it appear that you upvoted yourself.

            • .
              You express agreement with the prior person’s opinion (a belief not based on fact) as if you were lending your authority of a knowable Jesus and his fellow travelers.

              Either you do not know anything, but are willing to speak anyway.

              Or you do know better, but are willing to speak anyway.

              Ignorance is when you don’t know.

              Stupidity is when you do.

              Bigotry is by-god-ism, literally, abandoning full presence and awareness within one’s self, giving that up for other’s dogma.

              • Terry Mushroom

                Thanks for answering my question.

                (BTW I note that that a “glitch” has upvoted yourself again.)

                • .
                  So long as I’m well-fed, I’ll respond to any name that gets me to the table — ‘Glitch” will do! 😉

                  Seriously though, o topic, on-point, @terrymushroom:disqus,

                  Two things MUST present themselves to you if you have a self-responsible open mind:

                  1 — What does your experience tell you about the importance of sex to anyone else but one’s self and one’s reproductive partner?

                  2 — Can you imagine that any ‘Jesus’ as God or Christ or Lord or Prophet would disagree your truth for yourself?


      • .
        You lie.

        Mary Magdalene was a disciple.

        The men eradicated her from the record.

    • .
      He did.

      The men tossed her.