Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!orca!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Church decision on whether women have souls: Results. Message-ID: <2776@pogo.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Oct-86 18:49:47 EDT Article-I.D.: pogo.2776 Posted: Sat Oct 4 18:49:47 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Oct-86 05:38:56 EDT Reply-To: daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) Distribution: na Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 138 Just recently read a self-righteous flame from Rich Richardson in article <1134@mhuxt.UUCP>. When I first asked about the council I got flamed, and when I said I'd investigate and apologize if I was wrong, I was flamed. Now that I've posted the results, I'm being flamed again and essentially being called a liar. The flame essentially had 5 parts: 1. We don't know what they meant by the word "soul" or "human" in 584. 2. The concept of "rights" and the notion that slavery or serfdom is bad didn't exist back then. Everyone was an asshole by todays standards, and what the Church was doing was the norm. 3. The council probably wasn't a "real" Church council, and all of the references are "garbage", and they were probably all lying. 4. If the council isn't mentioned in the today's mainstream of Catholic Literature then it probably didn't happen, after all why would the Catholics cover it up? 5. As to all the other mysogyny (eg: _The_Hammer_Of_Witches_) that was just the popes, not the "Church". Well, Richard got pretty rough and self-righteous in his article, so I see no reason to hold back. Few times have I seen such blatant fatuous, supercilious hypocracy. 1. The Church claims to know what Moses meant by the words "human" and "soul" when he said it *over* 2000 years ago. It also knows what Joshua bar Joseph (Jesus' real name) meant when he said those same words 2000 years ago, but, according to Rich, modern non-Catholic scholars can't possibly know what the Catholic Church meant by those words 1500 years ago. The words obviously changed meanings during that time, and the scholars can't translate the Church vernacular of that period (Or did the Church just change the meaning of the words during the council?). Get off it Rich, in your own words, this argument is garbage. 2. As to it being acceptable to deny freedoms because everyone was doing it, that's bullshit. The Jews, (from which the Church says that it inherited the faith) frowns on both slavery and serfdom. According to Old Testament Law, a man could only *sell himself* into slavery, and never for more than 7 years. To discourage a man from wishing to be a slave after that, the man had to insist a nail be driven through his ear into the doorframe of the his new master's house. I'm sure there are other examples of people who didn't support slavery. But instead of following the lead of the more enlightened people and championing the cause of the slaves and the serfs, the Church itself became one of the largest owners of serfs by being one of the largest landholders. They didn't do this just because everybody else was; they did it because it was profitable. And now no one is supposed to judge the Church for what it did. What make the Church so special; it's judged millions of people and hundreds of religions, but no one is allowed to judge it. They even have a crime for judging the Church, its called heresy. 3. Rich I'll write this slowly so that you can keep up and not be confused. I found 4 references to the council, the three most detailed were not Catholic history books. None of the common mainstream literature that I found mentions the council *except one*, and that was the _Catholic_Encyclopedia_ (an excellent Catholic reference). The encyclopedia said (now read my lips Richard) that the council of Macon did exist, and at the second official, Church Sanctioned Council of Macon, one of the main issues was, quote "the disposition of women" (Did I go to fast for you Rich?). It also gave several (about 7) french references and about 5 english references to the council. The most recent of the english books is about 80 years old. This puts them in the category of rare books, which makes them almost impossible to get access to. You ask how the other people could get references when I couldn't, maybe they could read french or had access to these rare books. Which brings us to point 4. 4. We've seen that the council was reasonably well documented in Catholic literature until about 80 years ago, and now there's little or no information anywhere. Rich writes: > Call me old fashioned, but sometimes I'm inclined to believe the hundreds > of books that imply that something DIDN'T happen instead of the three or > four that insist something DID happen, but everybody's trying to cover it > up. Essentially, he wants to know how anyone, including the Church, could influence everyone to ignore a subject in Catholic literature. Maybe the Church didn't try to cover it up, maybe it was just suddenly forgotten. But Rich, I'd like you to explain why all these books that profess to be major reference works have no mention of this council, and also explain who else but the Church would have any reason to keep knowledge about the council restricted. Could it be that the last English books to mention the council came out about the time of women's suffrage? That suddenly the council became an embarrassing subject to the entire Church, and that if it became common knowledge there would have been a lot of Catholic suffragettes mad at the Church? Naw, couldn't be. The Church has always been open to public ridicule, just look how they treat nuns and priests, and even devotees that disagree with official Church policy on abortion, divorce and birth control. They've never used their influence to control the flow of information, conducted trials for heresy, or put books and authors under interdiction. The Church has never used its influence to bury books, or ideas or facts, so how could I ever have gotten such an idea. You tell us Rich, what was the real reason this council fell through the cracks in almost every the major Catholic reference book, even the ones dealing specifically with Church Councils. 5. Finally he says, it wasn't the Church's fault that bad things happened. It was the popes and the bishops, but never the Church. I think you're confusing the Catholic Church with the Catholic God, but then so does the Church. A church is a group of men that gather to worship their god. This group also tends to make a lot of rules to live by, which are their interpretation of their god's will. Now I find it amazing that the Church can hold about 90 generations of Jews guilty (even to the point of forgiving them) for the death of Joshua bar Joseph, but the Church refuses to take any responcibility for the thousands and thousands killed in the name of the Church (eg: the witch hunts, the inquisitions, the Church supported pogroms). We just get the explanation that it wasn't the Church; it was the pope and the bishops and the priests and their followings merely executing and torturing in the Church's name. Well if these people weren't the Church, then what is? Not only has the Church soiled its hands with blood, it has never publically repented (something it demands of everyone else). It has never apologized, and never tried to make specific restitution. The Church has done (and is doing) some great goods ( Catholic charities to the poor, Mother Teresa, the sanctuary for lepers in Hawaii, the agraculture and trade schools in Micronesia), but it has also done some great evils. If they won't even take responcibilty for the crimes of the past, how can we be sure that they won't repeat them in the future? Perhaps in discussing the mistakes of the past we can keep someone from having complete blind faith in a fallable Church (of any type) in the future. I also admit that it angers me when a group says "We are the way, We are perfection. We may judge and not be judged, and you all must follow us and our perfection, or be eternally punished", This is especially true when I can clearly see records of their past intolerance and cruelty. I also get angry when someone calls the work I did "garbage", without going to check out the facts himself (with the information I've given him). So Rich, I've now given you some good Catholic sources to investigate (again!), why don't you use them. Don't cop out; put a month or two into investigation, learn to read french and try to prove me wrong. If you do prove me wrong about the council, then I'll apologize. Of course if you can't prove me wrong, then I'll expect an apology from you. Feeling better for having vented my spleen, Dave Butler Its more important to know what is correct, rather than who is correct. Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.