Thus spake the patriarchs

This makes me so angry I am spitting at my screen.

VATICAN CITY — African cardinals denounced the "cultural imperialism" of wealthy 
countries in their aid, trade and health care policies for Africa, saying Wednesday that the West's promotion of abortion rights and condoms is destroying the continent's moral fabric.

Because rape all over the continent is part of the ''moral fabric?''

And forget ''cultural imperialism.'' What about Catholic imperialism?

African prelates attending the three-week meeting on the role of the Catholic Church in Africa said their countries needed economic development partnerships that are based on trust and fairness, not ones that exploit Africa's natural resources and put conditions on aid.

Agreed on the exploitation part, but, if the conditions they reject include maternal health care and contraceptives, well, these guys are just emissaries from Misogynist Central in the Vatican.

"We want to be helped, but helped in the name of truth, with respect of what we are and what we want for ourselves," Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal, told a news conference.

He and Cardinal Wilfred Fox Napier of Durban, South Africa, denounced "hidden" agendas of international aid groups and countries that promote abortion rights and condoms to fight HIV, saying the West was trying to impose its views on Africa.

Their arguments have been echoed during the synod, with repeated criticisms of institutions  that promote "reproductive health care" for women. The Vatican has warned that such programs — often supported by the United Nations — are really just a cover for promoting access to abortions and birth control.

The Vatican opposes abortion and artificial contraception. It has come under heavy criticism for its opposition to condoms as a way of fighting HIV, particularly in hard-hit Africa.

"There are certain cultural norms that are inherent in Africa," Napier said. "One of them is that sexual activity is for bringing babies into the world. It's not so much for enjoyment."

Yeah, well, rape isn't particularly enjoyable.

And neither is giving birth to HIV-positive babies -- and then dying and leaving them orphaned.

But this is what God wants, right?

SHAMELESS PLUG: I am a supporter of this Canadian Christian-mission run orphanage in Uganda.

Yeah, I did say Christian. Surprise, surprise.

The photo (above right) is of two of its wards, Fatuma and Frank.

Please consider a donation.

Thank you.

Comments

[Jim M]

As much as I am inclined and would like to support everything that the church I grew up in stands for, I cannot think of a way to defend the position of her patriarchal leadership on issues like contraception and HIV, especially in places like the continent of Africa.

However, I can think of one possibly rational though abstract and very incomplete way to explain why the Vatican would desire to maintain the apparently irrational and self-defeating policy of appearing to promote life while in reality promoting, causing and inviting more death.
There must be some kind of reason or process by which the irrational becomes rational in a patriarchy. Or, could it be there is some form of logical but immoral reason for controlling population numbers, same way as the population numbers of a few other biological species are culled?
I cannot imagine a reason that would make sense in moral terms, except that failure to fail, in essence, somehow equals a greater failure or disaster of some other unspeakable form or nature. I described this possibility as abstract and incomplete to begin with, but you’ve gotta wonder about some of these things and dare to ask uncomfortable questions sometimes, especially when positions that seem so irrational are maintained.
However, it could be that baptizing one’s computer screen can also help, and maybe we’ll find out when/if the blogger reports her results back after taking this experiment into a lab. Or was it a Star field?

[Shell]

To JIM M: You are looking for some form of rational answer, where none exists. This issue is about Power. Power of men over women. Power of the church over it's "lambs:. Power. Exercising Power. Maintaining Power. Gaining more Power. Period.
Of course the patriarchs who are clinging to their Power tell all, & actually probably believe, that it is "for the good of the people". You know, the way your Dad did when he said "This is for your own good!", and you knew it was not anything to do with your "good". Think about it. This is an institution of SINGLE, supposedly CELEBATE MEN who are utterly ignorant of women - of reproduction, of sexuality, of love, of feelings, of who or what women are. They are terrified of that weird hidden "devil-made" power of the "seductive Eve". Their entire church is built on excluding 51% of the population from any form of power or choice. Women are there to serve. And to obey.
I'm sorry but there IS no kind of reqason or logic to this. It is arrogance, ego, patriarchy & power - all combined.

[Jim M]

Thank you, Shell. It helps me that you drew a parallel between the patriarchy that rules the church I grew up in and the father of the family I was raised within. Even though I don’t think everything my own father did was necessarily “for my own good,” as you and he put it (Shell is code for telepath?), I believe that he believed everything he did was for my own good. That should explain why I remain open to believing that a possibility exists for church laity in large numbers and regardless of gender to influence or change along with church leadership.
Even if you are right that the church only desires more power all the time over lambs, which I would not necessarily disagree with, then my question would be, why would the church not prefer to have power over the healthiest and best educated lambs in the solar system, if not the whole ‘terrifyingly seductive’ universe?

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"I cannot think of a way to defend the position of her patriarchal leadership"

Jim M, Shell, you both lack imagination. I come from a tradition generally very unsympathetic to the Catholic Church, and I can see the reasoning.

The idea is that sex is supposed to be a wonderful and mysterious gift from God (and like all gifts, should not be opened early), and that any attempt to interfere with the process takes something away from it. Children should always be regarded as a blessing, and affirmation of love etc etc. ....

well . . . yeah

... except it doesn't work that way, as you may well understand even better than I do.

and I think I mentioned in a previous post one reason that the African bishops take such an uncompromising line .....

Oh and Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator

if the Vatican is misogynist central what does that make Mecca?

[Jim M]

I think the Vatican and Mecca just reflect the misogyny of their people, same way George Bush reflected of the celebration of stupidity so vividly, and same way Mylie Cyrus now reflects the heroine chic depths to which the celebration of youth has stooped. Therefore, it seems to me that trying to identify "misogynist central" in one or more particular places is a mistaken quest.