Sunday, June 19, 2005

Priest unrepentant after crucifying of nun...Or, the patriarchy still rules

From IOL
via tvnewslies
"Tanacu, Romania - A Romanian Orthodox priest who ordered the crucifixion of a young nun because she was "possessed by the devil" and now faces murder charges was unrepentant on Saturday as he celebrated a funeral mass for his alleged victim.

"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," Father Daniel, 29, the superior of the Holy Trinity monastery in north-eastern Romania, said before celebrating a short mass "for the soul of the deceased", in the presence of 13 nuns who showed no visible emotion.He insisted that from the religious point of view, the crucifixion of Maricica Irina Cornici, 23, was "entirely justified", but admitted that he faced excommunication as well as prosecution, and was seeking a "good lawyer.................................................................................. .........................a 34-year-old parishioner who had come to defend Daniel and gave her name as Dora, said Sister Irina " had to be punished, she had an argument with the Father during a Sunday mass and insulted him in front of the congregation.
"Sociologist Alred Bulai said that corporal punishment was still commonly used in certain Romanian monasteries."

In the summer of 2001, I marched in NYC, from a square near 4th St., to the Vatican's NYC residence. I marched with nuns, against Nun Abuse committed by priests. The stories that I heard that day, were almost unbeliveable. Almost. Unless of course, you had already been a victim of the catholic church and it's sexual and financial excesses.

I was still amazed and incredibly saddened, though, to hear the stories told by the nuns, that summer day in 2001. Stories that the catholic church knew about, and did nothing about. In fact, the method employed by the cc, of solving the problem of priests who had raped nuns all over the world, was the same one that was/is used with the child victims of sexual abuse by the catholic church's priests. They simply moved them to a different missionary location, or brought them back to their native country and installed them in a parish there.

I listened to the story's of nuns who were sent all over the world on the catholic church's Missionaries, only to find when they arrived in a remote corner of the world, a lecherous priest who not only made them "bend down" to his higher authority, but who had already twisted his patriarchal religious authority into ensuring a supply of nubile young local parishioners be gathered into the fold he resided over, as "noviates".
Once in, the young prenuns were often raped, and if a pregnancy occurred due to the rape, then the ever obliging head of his flock would demand of the local hospital staff, that an abortion be performed on the flock leaders progeny...
If the young, pregnant woman died during the abortion, the leader of the flock was the one who also presided over her funeral. These types of horrendous abuse stories abounded that day.

That summer day in 2001 that I walked in solidarity with the nuns, I walked with so many women who were so advanced in age, that they could not stand up straight while they marched. The dowagers hump on their back precluded that.

But still they came that day, bused in from all over the US and Canada. And they marched, in the NYC summer heat, in memory of their friends, their fellow sisters. Women who went to a remote corner of the world to help the victims of poverty and social injustice, only to become victims of a two thousand year old patriarchy, themselves.

Some of the scars were more than fifty years old, some were too, too, fresh. At the end of the march, the large crowd stood in front of the Vatican residence, and respectfully requested that a representative come out and answer their requests for a review of the sexual abuse committed against nuns by priests.

THE VATICAN REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE WOMEN. They never came out of their very expensive brownstone hole. They would not answer the women who had spent their lives in devotion to the cc's god. Women who had financially, verbally, and through the giving of their professional lives, supported the cc.
That is an example of the extreme arrogance of the patriarchy of the moneyed catholic church.
When I saw the recent picture of John Conyers, a member of Congress, holding petitions signed by 540,000 Americans, standing at the locked gates of the White House, the flashback to that day in 2001 was immediate. The supremacy of the moneyed patriarchy was absolute both times.
Abuses are not answered to, questions about it's processes are deemed insignificant, and if you persist in coming to it's door, you will be ignored. It's power is absolute.

The cc has since spent over a billion dollars in settlements of sexual abuse of children by it's priests. I have yet to hear of any settlements of, or recognition of, the abuse of it's nuns.

I have written off and on in this blog about the reasons why I refuse to join a religion that holds a male god as it's only god. It is the very essence of prejudice. It assumes a reigning sex. It holds one of the only two genders in this world in a superior state over the remaining one. It allows society at large to then hold and justify god given dominion over others. It allows, due to the fact that GOD, the SUPREME BEING, is imaged as one of the male sex, to deem the humanity of the "other, non god imaged" sex, less.

And when you are deemed, in reality or by implication, less of a human, then you do not enjoy all of the same rights as the god imaged one. Your suffering is not as valid, your pain is of less consequence, your voice means less, your rights are less meaningful, less substantial. You can then be abused, and your cries of abuse be ignored, much as a dog in the street's cries are ignored. They simply do not mean as much as the god imaged ones. How could they?

Recently, there has been some controversy in the blogosphere due to a prominent male liberal blogger making the statement at the end of this post, in response to queries as to why he would have an ad on his much viewed site, that was denigrating.
I saw the ad, and it is out of place on a "liberal" blog. But, it wasnt the ad that offended me. I would go insane if I let every sexist ad, movie, and statement in this world offend me.

No, it wasn't the ad. It was the male bloggers arrogant, dismissive, demeaning, and patriarchal response to criticisms of it, on a prominent liberal blog. In addition, his response to that criticism showed his immaturity, and extreme lack of insight into, as he called it, "the important shit."

From the DailyKos "Pie fight ad by kos
Sun Jun 5th, 2005 at 22:01:25 PDT

So over the weekend, certain segments of the community have erupted in anger over the TBS ad for their reality show, the Real Gilligan's Island. Apparently, having two women throw pies at each other, wrestle each other in a sexy, lesbianic manner, then having water splashed on their ample, fake bosoms is degrading to women. Or something like that.

Whatever. Feel free to be offended. I find such humorless, knee-jerk reactions, to be tedious at best, sanctimonious and arrogant at worst. I don't care for such sanctimony from Joe Lieberman, I don't care for it from anyone else. Some people find such content offensive. Some people find it arousing. Some people find it funny. To each his or her own.

But I am not Lieberman. I won't sit there and judge pop culture and act as gatekeeper to what I think is "appropriate", and what isn't.

And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site.
Feel free to be offended.
Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country.
Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.

Me, I'll focus on the important shit.

For the rest of his post, go here
The above link includes his 'apology'? if you can call it that. I think it only makes his original post even more offensive. The end of it states "Sorry about that, but not sorry about my broader point -- that being sanctimonious about this ad is no different than the sanctimony we decry from people like Lieberman, Dobson, and the Family Values Coalition.

It is a far stretch from asking why a major liberal blog would put offensive ads on it's site, to the Lieberman, Dobson, et al reference that DKos uses as his defense. Is that the best defense that you can come up with? Another offense?
---Abuses are not answered to, questions about it's processes are deemed insignificant, and if you persist in coming to it's door, you will be ignored. It's power is absolute.---

For what it's worth, this is my take on the DailyKos' statement, and why it is tied in here to this Sunday post.



Post a Comment

<< Home