You can always expect a few laughs from
the wacky religion reporting of the Times’ religion reporter who Jimmy
Akin calls Ruth “I’m Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job”
Gledhill. In her latest news story (a.k.a. op ed)
she writes
on Cherie Blair recent criticism of Muslims forcing women to wear
veils.
Mrs Blair’s own Church forbids the
ordination of women, forbids women from using condoms even when their
husband has been infected by HIV while working away, and denies the
sacrament of communion to women who are divorced and remarried without
an annulment, even when a woman’s first marriage has broken down
because of abandonment for a younger woman by their husband.
Now you might wonder how an article on
Muslim women wearing veils can segue into Catholic Church bashing – but
if you did then you aren’t use to Ruth Gledhill’s writing.
What I find highly ironic about her examples is how they are mostly
examples of the Church’s view of equality. For example:
- Women are forbidden to use female condoms, just as males
are forbidden to use condoms also even if their spouses have an STD. - Both men and women who are divorced and do not have a
declaration of nullity can not be remarried. - Both men and women who were abandoned by their spouse for a
newer model can not be remarried.
As for women’s ordination she can take that one up with Jesus since it
was his will. The Church neither has the power to accept or
forbid women’s ordination, she is just following Christ.
Besides why do they never get on the case of Buddhists and
Muslims for not having women monks and clerics?
What she totally misses is that that when it comes to sexual morality
men and women are held to the same standard. This was not
true prior to Christianity where for example only adultery by women was
seen as bad and women were truly second class citizens.
Though it is quite common for people to bite the hand that
fed you.
4 comments
I agree with your post, but have you taken a look at Mr Akins blog lately? Dinosaurs, Materialism, and anything to ever skate around an issue. When the Connecticut Bishops decision regarding birth control were on his blog, he put a big disclaimer in Red so not to appear to be coming down on these Bishops
What Catholic who want reverence and respect back in the church need blogs that are willing to call it like it is and not worry about the latest speaking engagement or book deal such as the so called mainstream blogs.
What she totally misses is that when it comes to sexual morality men and women are held ot the same standard.
Something that cannot be said about Islam. True, men and women are expected to “dress modestly”, but if a womanis assaulted or victimized in any way – it’s her fault. It is, more often than not, WOMEN who are punished when they are raped (because Islam requires a woman to have 3-4 male witnesses to the rape for her testimony to be valid), it is WOMEN who are murdered if they dare to date or be alone with a male without proper permission, and it is WOMEN who are mutilated via female “circumcision”.
Remember the whole “uncovered pieces of meat” statement by the imam in Australia? Yeah. That’s just hte tip of the iceberg.
I’d much rather be a Catholic woman. You know, where they respect me.
Jeff, aren’t you getting a tad carried away here? Just thinking that before Christianity, the Ten Commandments ruled out adultery for men too.
Ruth Gledhill is biased against Catholicism, but when she sticks to covering Anglicanism, I find her stuff not too bad. Maybe The Times could make her its Anglicanism Correspondent? Now, you want to see a religion correspondent who’s dangerously unqualified, take a look at Michael Valpy in The Globe and Mail (known by some wags as Toronto’s National Newspaper).
You would be more convincing if you could write in English.