This is going to be another very rare political post from me. I need to get something out of my system. In short, a lot of Catholics on the internet are a bunch of freaks, and not in the good way.

http://rosaryarmy.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9340

And I quote the post verbatim, since i believe one has to register. My comments are in brackets.

...because of my well known political leanings, many might take this as a personal attack on Sen Obama. I mean no such personal attack. [Oh bullshit. The whole post is one big personal attack. See also my comment at the end, that it's OK for "favorites" to post whatever they like.] I'm also not part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm) or the Republican Attack Machine(R). [But he admits to having "well known political leanings," which are almost always right of center.]

As a military officer, I attempt to be as apolitical as humanly possible.[Which he most certainly isn't on the forums.]

The reason I am posting this is because I found it might be a piece of the puzzle about who this man is (and if you believe the polls, already elected), and what he believes, and wanted some other opinions. What he believes in important, because Sen Obama makes decisions based in his worldview and mindset, and presumably his faith.[So? I have a Buddhist mala a friend gave to me that was blessed by a lama. It doesn't mean that I'm suddenly Buddhist. It means that I have a friend, who knows I have an active prayer life and gave me a precious--to her--gift.]

Sen Obama has professed his Christian confession on multiple occasions, and I take him at his word...however, judging by his stance on the life issues and then little items like this...well, lets just say that I'm curious as to how a Christian might reconcile his/her faith with carrying a Hindu idol in his pocket (if not voting against the Born Alive Infant Act).[Yeah, and not every Christian believes what the Rosary Army holds to be gospel, thank God. And there could be a number of reasons why a politician would vote against that act, especially with the Bush administration's fondness for sneaking in pork.]

NRIs back Obama, thanks to Hanuman

WASHINGTON: The support of the Indian Americans to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is steadily rising , thanks to his lucky charm Lord Hanuman, suggests a leading American daily.

REQUEST: please don't flame Sen Obama. He's a United States Senator, and his office deserves respect...[Unlike what the poster has shown.]I request you restrict any and all comments to the issue (mixing religious symbols), and how this particular thing might give a window into the worldview of the man, and not the man personally. [Gasp. I clutch at my pearls that a person would actually show some sort of religious tolerance.]

So...Harmless? Superstitious? [I call bullshit on the original poster.]

First off, the original poster is flatly endorsing a political candidate, and has been for a very long time. Secondly, having something doesn't mean belief in it. But if the original poster could see past his bias long enough to actually google Hanuman, he'd find that Hanuman epitomizes the essence of love and devotion. Yeah, that's a bad quality for a candidate to have. Third, I'm sure it was given to him by someone who sincerely believed he/she was doing something good by giving him that charm. I don't believe in the Hindu pantheon, but it's no different, were I to give a Hindu friend a rosary. (I've made rosaries out of Buddhist malas--a bunch were being sold in a bead store, and it felt wrong that objects once used for prayer would be sold as overpriced baubles. So I bought as many as I could to make rosaries out of, so they'd still be used for prayer.)

OK, we get it. The poster on the forum won't vote for Obama because of his voting record. Fair enough, and I can respect that reason. But to bring a good luck charm into it? Like Catholics don't do the same with various saints medals, miraculous medals, and scapulars? Come on and give me a flipping break. The whole thing reeks of a petty attack.

I wonder if part of the reason why people (read: some white, right-wing males) are so threatened by Obama as a candidate is because they're afraid to give up the white male privilege they've enjoyed for so long. I'd post all of this there, but I'm sure it would disappear, since the person making the post is one of the "favorites." Such people can do no wrong, and anyone who dares question them get censored.

I had to turn off the news tonight.

More stories about the Democrats making their party implode, the food crisis, the housing crisis, recession, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe. So then I decide to go get a burger and check my mail. (I have a PO box. Just makes sense with as much traveling as I do.)

Somehow I got on the mailing list for a bunch of conservative Catholic groups, some barely in communion with Rome and others I wish weren't. (Sorry, folks, I've got a reboot of the ovarian operating system happening, and I'm a bit thin on charity today, for reasons that will become apparent.) Today's junkmail offering was from the Human Life International group.

On the surface they seemed decent. But if you look in their mission statement, they're Yet Another Catholic Group that doesn't see any other social issue beyond the gonads. They're against birth control and abortion, obviously, but also sex education. Come on, people. Quit giving people who think the RCC is only about the repression of sex any more ammunition. I was also invited to sign and send back the Humanae Vitae Pledge with my donation.

Now, I'm cranky at these people because I'm on the Pill, and there isn't a month that doesn't go by that I don't thank my Maker for giving the people who developed it the knowledge to do so. It allows me to lead a normal life, otherwise I'd be laid up in bed for two weeks out of every month. Yes, I've discussed it with my doctor (a naturopath, by the way), and it's the cheapest, safest, and easiest alternative. Now, this use of the Pill is allowed for under the encyclical Humanae Vitae. (Yes, I've read it. I totally agree with most of it.)

Yet you wouldn't believe the people who suggest I should either "offer it up," use natural alternatives, or just use NFP. Well, last I checked, NFP doesn't do squat when the red army is on the march. Why are people so dismissive of women's health? There are medicines that impact a man's fertility and abilities (shall we say), yet I never hear them get the same kind of grief a woman gets for being on medication that affects her fertility.

I think all of this is really a big sign of a larger issue. Why are we dismissive of women? It seems like there is a part of the Church that still dismisses their gifts and abilities. (And so the Pope noted in this article at Whispers in the Loggia. It's well-worth a read, and it's what convinced me that Benedict wasn't so bad, after all.) I'd like to posit that it's political, at least in this country, an influence of the "Jesus Camp" types who're rampant in the government.

I'd also like to posit that the "culture of death" isn't so much about couples contracepting, but people looking for the easiest possible thing to latch onto. Being pro-life is messy. It asserts that the life of the homeless guy who defecated in your bushes is just as sacred as a cute baby, the person on Death Row, or the Iraqis we bombed last week.

Still working on the post about Torchwood, Doctor Who, and reconciliation. I'm kind of dragging my feet on it, since I want to see how season 4/30 plays out.

In the interest of full disclosure, this one will be filled with spleen venting and minor airing of grievances. I'm seeing a trend in the blogosphere that's disturbing me. It seems like any kind of Catholic who doesn't openly identify or sympathize with the SSPX has a big target painted on their ass, especially if they openly identify as female. I've seen two bloggers lately harassed and quit blogging because of it.

It's as if in their minds--the bullies--that any Catholic woman must be demure--read subservient and non-threatening--homeschool, and be a mother. Fortunately for the rest of us, the Church is big enough to accommodate everyone. You know the old adage about praying as you can, not as you can't? That isn't limited by sex. Some women do find their spirituality through motherhood and raising children. Others don't. I find it unsurprising that most of these bullies are men under the age of 25 and are single, not by choice.

These attitudes towards women scare me, frankly. This is behavior I'd expect from certain tribal regions of the middle east, not in westernized nations out of a religion that's gone through the Enlightenment already. It's as if they can keep women ignorant, they won't demand things like equal pay, access to education, and the like.

And these attitudes aren't just towards women, either. You should read some of the hate they spew towards gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. Really, folks, gay is not catching. You can't become gay because of gay cooties. All confessing your disgust with "the gay lifestyle" does is make you an asshole. While I'm not in the least bit attracted to women--my kidding about Natalie Portman, aside--it isn't helping anyone, least of all myself, to emphasize this point. There are a ton of lifestyles I wouldn't be happy with, but it doesn't mean they're necessarily bad. All it means is, for whatever reason, they're wrong for me. And while I'm on the subject, I fail to see how a loving and committed relationship between two consenting adults does anything other than encourage my relationship. We need more love in this crappy world of ours.

Point the third, related to the second. Reading books by non-Catholics won't make you Protestant or atheist. Witness the ranting by Bill Donohue about the Dark Materials trilogy. I thought they were entertaining. One of my favorite TV shows is produced/written by an atheist (*gasp* and a gay one at that), and I'm finding plenty in it that engages me as a Catholic. (See also the end of "Last of the Time Lords.") Thank God, but we don't live in a Catholic world. We need to be able to engage and deal with other points of view besides our own, and being able to appreciate another's argument is not the same thing as accepting it.

Point the fourth. Just because someone has a blog doesn't mean that every point of view is welcome. The First Amendment only pertains to political speech, the right to assemble, and public speech. This blog is not public. Nor is any other blog. The blogosphere would be a more pleasant place, if more people remembered that. Nobody has a right to say what they want in any blog, not if they don't want to be sitebanned.

I've been in a funk lately. I'm sure part of it is financial aid worries (hopefully resolved) and the other part is that there are no good role models for lay Catholics. Rather, there aren't any that fit my situation in life. Most of the intellectuals I admire are monastics or people in religious orders. Lay modern Catholics? Can't think of many I'd like to emulate, especially for women. Most speak to childbirth and homemaking--both vitally important vocations, but neither mine.

So we've got St. Gianna Molla. She's never spoken to me. If anything her message seems to be the same as what I'd get from my family: I'm selfish if I don't have children. She's never mentioned for being a doctor during a time when women just weren't. She had to have been one sharp cookie--I'm sure the prejudice was against her to begin with, so she had to be better than those around her. I think a woman who was able to overcome such a situation back in the 1950's is enough proof of sainthood. But that's not what's emphasized in her story. I worry that the extremist "pro-lifers" are going to an idolatrous extreme, which objectifies women in opposite ways from hedonistic secularists.

Then we've got the Quattrocchi family. I swore I'd never discuss sex on my blog, but I can't say their relationship is one the Hoopy Frood and I would like to emulate, either. Sure, you can't build a relationship on sex, but going too far the other way--the term "living as brother and sister" for a married couple creeps me out in a deeply Freudian way--isn't good, either. Humans need closeness. There was a study done with primates--if you deprive them of touch from other primates they wither, give up, and die. I've seen the same thing happen to couples who've been married decades when one person in the relationship dies. The other person fades away.

Are children necessary for such a relationship? I know more than a handful of couples without children. The fruit of their love can't help but spill over into their relationships with other people. Maybe it's coincidence, but those couples--some of which have been married as long as I've been alive--are some of the most loving people I know.

I don't know why I was given the gift of being able to compose music. I have to believe it's not an accident, given the hardship and trials I've faced getting to where I am today. I'm not after fame and prestige--there are easier ways to get it beyond a doctorate in music composition. I don't know why I was given the gift of the Hoopy Frood, either, but I have to believe both of them aren't accidents.

Yet it seems like the overwhelming bias on marriage in the RCC emphasizes women giving up on their careers to be mothers. How is my being unhappy bringing glory to God or using the talents I have? (I know myself well enough at 32.5 to know that there is no way I'd ever be a happy person as a stay-at-home-mother.) How is throwing away my talents best for the relationship between the Frood and I?

I can point to Catholics I'd like to emulate, but they aren't "big names" or canonized saints. Maybe things are changing. Over on Whispers in the Loggia, Palmo wrote a wonderful article about the role of women in Benedict's papacy, including a letter from him about the need for women in the Church. So why doesn't the institutional Church value women's talents?