Latin Mass as a Cult of Male Domination
I had read that Latin Mass is a symbol for anti liberal Catholics. Knowing nothing about the matter it was interesting to read a woman's perspective of its role main in Catholic prejudice against women. It is not simply the language used but the anti female package it includes.
To start with, women are required to cover their hair. Women's hair is a preoccupation in religion for some reason. We see branches if Islam as well as Catholicism. The Amish also require covered hair for women. Forcing rules on women is part of the domination psychology.
Doing the mass in Latin is not the history of the Catholic church, so the article says. As the faith spread it incorporated many languages. Latin mass was introduced later as a recent requirement. It was another way to establish the authority of the clergy over those in the pews.
Already there have appeared rebuttals to this woman's criticism of Latin mass. Doesn't she understand, these men write, that God gave all this authority to men and no one today has the right to challenge it.
Christianity is often called a cult. A group which shares in common the view there is something else somewhere besides what we can see, smell and feel does not by itself seem like a cult to me. But, when a group uses the unseen and unknown to vest power, knowledge and control in one subgroup at the expense of those considered less worthy we are sliding into a cult abyss. The large role for men and the lesser role for women is considered by the link to be a cult. Certainly it is cult like.
Some Catholics like Latin mass. For the others the best protest is to not attend.
In some replies to Jon’s November 6, 2019 post “Two Men, Assumed to be Catholics, Stole and Threw in the River Sacred Art”, a healthy critical discussion of some of the potential consequences of post-modernism occurred. A knowledgeable participant in this discussion, “Unknown”, asserted that philosophically, post-modernism leads to “[giving] up on the notion of so-called universal moral truths” and “is nothing more or less than the death of reason, leaving us to resolve any moral issue by resort to raw power.” As we see here in the current topic, adherence to and dare I say weaponizing the potency of these universal moral truths can also result in what some may term an unreasonable and callous abuse of power. In terms of the relationship of men and women I am somewhat familiar with the notion of “complimentarianism” as it defines the life roles of the sexes. I cannot recall where I also read that for the sin of Eve offering Adam the forbidden fruit, women can vindicate themselves by bearing children. The notion of redemption though pregnancy in some form seems to hold power to this day in some traditions. Man and womb-man, “Ontologically equal, Functionally different”.
ReplyDeleteArdy B 4:19 "The notion of redemption through pregnancy...seems to hold power to this day in some traditions."
ReplyDeleteGreat post and sound observations. The original sin and pregnancy, we have a popular phrase for that "quid pro quo." Our friend Matt has chided me for saying the genders are equal and pointed out women can have babies. When I asked him why that disqualifies them from being clergy he always says it's not that simple. But, it's quite simple. Men runs things in much of the faith, women do not.
I would guess Priests use the term "femininity" ten times more often than liberal Protestant preachers. Thinking back, I can't remember the word ever being spoken in liberal churches.
Why otherwise intelligent people think the Bible or Christianity provides a "moral foundation" or "moral grounding" baffles me. Instead, the entire myth of moral superiority gives license to abuse of power. Oh yes, we read hear the great works of philosophy tell us man needs some super natural force to hold back his bad instincts.
Let's start with actual experience. What is the most secular society in the world today? I have heard it is Japan. Maybe parts of Europe compete today, polling majority not religious. If human instincts caused sweeping harm you would see it in these secular societies. Haven't seen it. (Let's keep this with contemporary societies. No more Hitler, a Catholic, or Stalin, who thought religion was a political competitor. The Crusades were death by religion but lets not bring that up either.)
another child's garden of half baked philosophizing. and gee, how has the church managed to survive for 2K years without Jon's advice. And yes, Jon, Hitler was a "catholic" to the extent that he was baptized in the church. In point of fact he was anything but a Catholic in practice.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "he was anything but a Catholic in practice." Ah yes. Stalin was not an atheist in practice either. He just saw the Catholic church as a political competitor. Best you stick with an approach that does not make things up. Answer these: 1.)What are the most secular countries in the world today? 2.) Are they morally corrupt because they are not religious?
Delete