Men Stopped Snoring and Now America is Over

How did I miss Simcha Fisher until now? She is just a treasure trove of snark material!

Her latest bit of snarkalicious wonderment is entitled Masculinity Reduction Surgery, which made me think that the New York Times had managed to find two hipsters trying to start the antitrend of penis size reduction, but alas, no.

It is far more sinister than that! It is the end of men and the end of America itself!!1!!eleventy!!!

Men are- I can hardly bear to type these words- getting plastic surgery. This is the end, my friends, the very end.

Look, I'm not really comfortable plastic surgery, unless it is reconstructive. If an accident or illness has left you looking significantly different than you used to, and this bothers you, reconstructive surgery all the way, baby! Otherwise . . . I dunno. I used to be totally opposed to plastic surgery, but then I noticed that my upper eyelids are drooping with age, as in actual overlap happening, and suddenly I think plastic surgery might be just the thing. So, I'm not judgey about plastic surgery, and I don't hold different standards for men and women on the subject, I'm just not comfortable with it. Probably because the results frequently look really odd, for one thing, and I also suspect that if we'd stop airbrushing and cutting up people showing the slightest hint of age, I might not feel quite so bad about a normal part of being 35.

Anyway, Simcha doesn't have these thoughts about plastic surgery, or at least she doesn't share them if she does. What she feels is, well:

What I mean to say is, didn’t there used to be men in this country? Men have always been vain, certainly, but one of their most endearing features has always been that most men will be vain for no particular reason. Haven’t you seen one of those 60-year-old behemoths on the beach, proceeding imperially down the shoreline like a glorious Adonis, even though his rock-hard, hairy, sunburned, hassock-sized belly alone takes up more property than the typical starter home? But he doesn’t care! He is

who he is, and he’s going to strut his stuff.

I’m not even kidding: That is what I like about men. They don’t give a damn. Their neck bulges over the back of their collar? So what? Their ears are hairy, their hands are rough, they snore and make noise and take up lots of space. That is what men are supposed to be like, and if they are going to start frowning into the magnifying mirror and getting all teary when bathing suit season comes around, then we might as well just call it a day. Good night, America. Sorry, Ben Franklin. It was a pretty good country, but it’s over now.

Ah, gender stereotypes. Girls like pink and don't know how to use power tools and men think their beer bellies and ear hair are hawt! And any man or woman not fitting into those stereotypes are destroying Western civilization!

First of all, fuck off. Men aren't "supposed to be" anything but themselves and men shouldn't have to pretend to be what you think men are supposed to be just so you can feel comfortable. Sorry, Simcha, you're not god.

Secondly, it's total bullshit. My husband's weight ranges from obese to morbidly obese. I don't care, but he does and he always has. He has never been proud of the amount of space he takes up or oblivious to how other people see him. My husband has eyes, Simcha. He can see all the movie stars and models and he can see that what's in the mirror doesn't look like that. And it doesn't make him feel good.

Yes, Simcha, men have feelings. (And soft hands. I can't imagine why a musician/recording engineer would have rough hands, but I guess that makes my husband a woman.)

I'm glad you like hairy ears and farts and snoring and neck bulges, but that doesn't make any woman who doesn't not a woman, or any man who doesn't want to be hairy-eared, farty and bulgey less of a man. And it's unbelievably arrogant of you to think that you can determine what men are, and declare that all men who don't fall into your categories aren't really men. Who the hell do you think you are, Simcha?

Oh, wait, I see, it's vascetomies. Men who have had them ARE NOT MEN.

How did we get here? In my entirely unscientific opinion, something else happened in the ‘50s, when men started making appointments with their doctors for a different procedure. And once it became common, there was no particular reason for men to look like men. One word, and I’ll give you a hint: It starts with “v-a-s.”

Ooh, sorry, neutered guys, did that hurt your widdle feelings? THAT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT A MAN.

Hey, done with fathering children? YOU ARE NOT A MAN! Incapable of fathering children? YOU ARE NOT A MAN! Testicular cancer require the removal of your testicles? YOU ARE NOT A MAN.

SIMCHA SAID SO*.

And you ruined America, you thoughtless unmale bastard. Now think about what you've done!

*Simcha only wrote that choosing sterility makes one NOT A MAN, but what's the difference? If sterility means you are not a man, it shouldn't make any difference whether one is sterile by choice or not.

How to Tell You Are Not a Feminist

I've seen 1,000 word explanations of feminism, but as the Princess of Pithy, I can boil that down for you into one sentence: Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal.

That's simple, right? Men and women, we are equal. Anything else associated with feminism- control over fertility, criticism of media treatment, concerns about representation in power structures- flows from that simple, defining belief.

Determining whether or not you are a feminist or whether an organization is inherently feminist, is equally simple. Do you promote actions or ideas that treat women and men equally? Does the organization act in a way that results in women and men being treated equally?

If not, neither you nor the organization are feminist. You may wish to be a feminist, but if you don't hold to that belief, you are not. Go find another word. This is not to say that feminism is a monolith and that all feminists believe all the same things. I've heard equally good arguments for and against pornography and sex work from feminists I admire equally. I've heard some fairly silly arguments regarding subjects like wearing colours and skirts* from feminists I otherwise admire. However, even those arguments are within the framework of equality for all sexes**.

For example, is the Catholic Church feminist? The short answer is "no, what the hell is wrong with you?", but you probably didn't stop by for the short answer, and I'm stumped on what happens next in my book, so I'll ramble on a bit.

If you're not familiar with the Catholic Church (hereinafter "RCC"), even a cursory examination of the structure and teachings of the RCC is enough to show it is inherently misogynistic. Men rule the RCC. From priest to cardinal to bishop to pope, the entire power structure is exclusively male. Only men can lead worship services, only men can make policy decisions, only men speak for God. Women have two roles, and both those roles are in service to men: wife/mother and nun.

This is not feminism.

The policies of the RCC flow directly from this misogyny. Women are not allowed control over their bodies, and are fully expected to die in difficult pregnancies and to bear the child of their rapist, even if that rapist is their father, even if they are 9 years old. Women are fully expected to give up any possibility of a career and to bear one child after another until they no longer can. That is the role of women in the RCC and it will never change, because the policy makers will never be women.

This is not feminism.

Having established that, is it possible for a Catholic to be feminist, or for a feminist to be Catholic in good standing holding to the accepted teachings of the RCC? No. Logically, one could not embrace the above and be a feminist, simply because the beliefs of the RCC and feminism are mutually exclusive.

Now here's the thing about feminism: feminism does not promise you a rose garden. Even if feminism overcame all misogyny tomorrow, that doesn't mean every individual woman's life would automatically be perfect. Feminism seeks to remove artificial societal barriers keeping women lesser than men. Feminism does not require that each woman become a doctor or limit herself to two children or abort her rapist's baby. Feminism merely seeks to make those choices available to you. You are more than welcome to choose to be a stay at home mother, to have eleven children and to continue any pregnancy you wish, even if that means risking your own life in the process. I would not make those choices, personally, but I'm not you and I will support your right to make choices, even if I might personally find them bizarre or ill advised.

Basically, in the linked article above (and here, why make you scroll?) Simcha Fisher argues that because she takes advantage of certain advances earned by feminists, she is a feminist. Just soak that in for a minute.

What if I had to argue with the auto parts clerk to buy a headlight bulb, even though I was the one replacing it? What if the bank required me to get my husband’s permission for this and that? And what if I wore skirts because I’d be shunned if I didn’t, and not because I felt like wearing them?

Yeah, that would totally suck, right? That's the world many feminists lived in and worked so hard to improve. When my mother was in college, that was the world. Married women couldn't get credit in their own name, so she didn't. Female college students couldn't attend classes in pants. If you showed up to class in pants, you would be escorted out of the building. My mother is not 1,000 years old. This is very recent history.

So here's Simcha, aware of that history, grateful it is history and is simultaneously patting herself on the back for supporting an organization that is deeply misogynistic.

So what makes me a feminist? Some would say that all faithful Catholics are feminists, because the Church is the most pro-woman organization around: The Church honors and values the particular gifts of women, and demands that men treat women with dignity and even a little bit of fear. John Paul II famously called himself a “feminist pope”; and in practical terms, the Church has probably done more for the physical well-being of women around the world than any other charitable organization.

Catholics who are feminists recognize that, while so many true wrongs have been righted in the last 50 years, the poor treatment of women in America has just been displaced, not eradicated. So now, instead of corsets and disenfranchisement, we have widespread pornography, abortion, and abandonment of every kind. We have gained some necessary ground, but lost so much else that is valuable in the process. Most of my Catholic friends see the world this way.

Yes, pornography and abortion didn't exist until 1964, Simcha. JPII could have called himself a pink unicorn if he had wanted to, that wouldn't make it true. And you know what? I don't care what the RCC has done for women worldwide (health care missionaries? I'm not sure), as long as women are not allowed in the halls of power simply because they are women, the RCC is not feminist, and neither are you.

Find another word. "Feminist" is already taken.

*Admittedly, I wear skirts almost exclusively because I find them to be significantly more comfortable than pants, so maybe I just don't want to hear a feminist argument against skirts. Then again, I'm in favor of men having the option of wearing skirts (you'd think, given the, um, dangly nature of male genitals, that skirts would be the automatic male preference) as well, so I think I'm still falling within the equality test.

**We need to have a discussion about how limiting and exclusionary it is to discuss sex as if it is only male and female. There are those who fall outside the XX/XY paradigm, and it's hurtful to them to be constantly excluded from, quite literally, everything.

Fisking the Inquisition

[redacted] requested that I fisk the Catholic Church's official webpage on the Inquisition. I live to please*, so here you go.

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

An "embarrassment"? Yes, I'm always a little red-faced when I torture and kill people. It's on the same level as accidentally calling my boss "honey", really**.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

"Disappeared", huh? I bet. People do tend to do that when you kill them. Extraordinary rendition- medieval style!

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

The Roman inquisition was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes related to heresy, including sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well for censorship of printed literature.

Well, you can't have . . . "judaizing"? One can see why the RCC gets accused of sympathizing with the Nazis.

Among the subjects of this Inquisition were Francesco Patrizi, Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Girolamo Cardano, Cesare Cremonini, and Galileo Galilei. Of these, only Bruno was executed; Galileo died under house arrest, and Campanella was imprisoned for twenty-seven years. The miller Domenico Scandella was also put to the stake on the orders of Pope Clement VIII in 1599 for his belief that God was created from chaos.^[1]

Oh, Galileo! Got it. And execution and staking (I don't want to know) sound as benign as cotton candy and puppies.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

Conversos, i.e., people desperately trying to avoid exactly what they got from the Catholic Church. But really, it's hardly worth noting. Moderately embarrassing at best. Sort of like realizing the shirt you're wearing at work is see through***. Oops!

What must be g.asped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

No. True. Scotsman. When I'm Empress of the Entire Freakin' World, you won't be allowed to eat until you can pass a test on logical fallacies. I'm that sick of them, particularly the No True Scotsman. I am perfectly willing to admit that some atheists have been truly awful people. That doesn't make me or any other atheist awful people, so just admit that some Catholics have been bad bad boys and move on.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his g.asp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

I'm sure there is a name for this fallacy, I'm just not having any luck finding it. I've never seen anyone claim that 95m people were killed in the Inquisition. So why does the Holy See use this particular number? Two reasons. For one, it makes people discussing the Inquisition seem ridiculous, and if they're ridiculous about the number of people murdered, they're not trustworthy about any part of it, right? Secondly, it sets expectations. Once you've seen the number 95,000,000, the actual number of murdered will seem smaller. I mean, look: 1,000,000. Normally, one million is big number, but not when you've got 95,000,000 preceding it. Now 1,000,000 seems reasonable. Low, even.

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Now those are red herrings, and while I do like my fish, that kind always stinks. The Inquisition proves one thing and it's a very important thing in the milieu of the Catholic Church: several popes were wrongity wrong wrong wrong. Homicidally wrongity wrong wrong wrong. See, the Pope is infallible. It isn't even possible for the Pope to be wrong about anything. If the Pope says the sun rises in the West, it rises in the west, change your compass. So, either the Pope was right to kill people for the crime of Judaizing, or the Pope was not infallible. Pick one, but either way you've broken the Catholic faith. (Reason no. 347 I am no longer Catholic.)

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.


They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy.

Oh, well, if the Catharists weren't like today's fundamentalists, it's totally okay to torture and kill . . . wut?! Now I feel dirty.

Marriage was scorned [by Catharists] because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced. [emphasis added]

You know, I'm starting to understand the Catholic opposition to marriage equality. If "fucking Catharists were fornicating" is a good excuse to Inquisition them, I can only imagine what they feel homosexuals actually deserve. That is just vile.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people b.aspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The Catholic Church does this moral relativist schtick a lot. "Sure, we systematically protected pedophiles instead of children, but other churches have pedophiles in them, too!" No. Just no. I don't care what anyone else was doing at the time, the Inquisition was wrong, murdering people is wrong and killing the Catharists did not create civilization you fucks.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

That is my line! Seriously, the Holy See just pushed off blame by pointing out that the Bible itself is a horrifyingly brutal document that encourages brutality. I have nothing to add to that. They're right.

*True only for certain values of "live" and "please".

**In fairness to me, I had just gotten off the phone with my niece.

***In my defense, it wasn't see through at all at home. Stupid fluorescent lights.

A Whole New View of the Virgin Mary

I don't know about you . . .

Hundreds have seen the Virgin Mary in the sun.

Yes, I know, people see the Virgin Mary in everything from toast to trees, but this is different. For one thing, people can go blind looking for her. For another, this is the first time the Virgin Mary has shown us her vagina. Seriously, look at that picture. If that isn't a vagina, I don't know vaginas.

You go, Virgin Mary, Mother of God, show us the vagina from whence the Messiah the pushed. Awaken a new era of vagina positivity. Make bodily shame a thing of the past!

Here's a new Hail Mary for a new, letting it all hang out Mary:

Hail Mary, full of sex positivity.
Show us your vagina.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed are the labia which have touched the Messiah,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for our pap smears,

and work towards free health care for all.
Amen.

Men Just Aren't Used to "No"?

[trigger warning: rape. please visit this delightful otter instead.]

(Also, much thanks to [redacted] who actually answers me when I sent this post, half written, and asked "where am I going with this?")

Women as gatekeepers of sex is so deeply ingrained in our society that it took me 35 years to figure out what's wrong with natural family planning- although something about it always struck me as wrong*. I just couldn't figure out what.

Oh, right, you might need some background, because you're not actually in my brain. (We're all better off that way, trust me.) According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is either an institute seeking to advance sexual and reproductive health worldwide or the world leader in the production of aborted baby lasagna, 98% of Catholic women, including women who go to church at least once a month, use some form of birth control, including sterilization, IUDs and birth control pills.

This is controversial in that the Pope says that birth control is bad and there is no excuse for it. Are you currently living in poverty, unable to feed yourself, let alone someone else? Have more babies! Do you live in an area where 1 in 2 people are infected with HIV? Have unprotected sex! Do you currently have Stage IV cancer? Moar baybeez!

Really, though, is anyone surprised that almost all Catholic women capable of ignoring this advice currently are? Apparently, some people are, but those people have some startling views on consent and gatekeeping.

I think it takes a lot of courage and faith in God to use NFP during a marriage. I say this with deep trepidation, but the biggest draw back I’ve encountered is an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain. I think a lot of men who grew up in the Post Pill era have never been told that they can’t have sex, ever. It’s really hard to get someone to change in a marriage. And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession, I’ve never had a priest give me a hard time about it.

There are so many things wrong with that paragraph, and none of them are the birth control pill. "an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain." What she means to say is that she says no to sex and he won't take that no as an answer. That's not an unwillingness to abstain, that's rape**. And it's not the fault of slutty pill-popping feminists. He's heard "no" before. Every man has heard "no" before and will hear it again. His problem is that he is a rapist.

This makes me see red: And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession . . .

Her husband ignored her when she said "no" and she went to confession? And the priest said anything other than "you need to leave him, now"? I'm not surprised by that, and it makes me sad that I'm not surprised by that. I hope nobody wonders about my deep-rooted cynicism.

Serious consent issues aside, this is a major drawback of natural family planning. One of many. Abusive men frequently sabotage birth control in order to gain more control over their victims. Pregnant women are less likely to leave- and more likely to be killed. Homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in America. That's right. Murder. And that is true across all races and all socioeconomic classes. Abusive men sabotage birth control, impregnate their partners, abuse escalates during pregnancy and leads to murder a disturbing percentage of the time.

Natural family planning requires the consent of both parties to work. If one partner decides that this no thing isn't working for them, there is no birth control. In the above example, at least the husband is agreeing to use some other form of birth control (my guess would be condoms), but now this woman is carrying around guilt that she prevented a pregnancy in what is clearly a rather unhealthy relationship.

And why is she carrying this guilt around? Because women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men want sex, all the time, women do not. Women only have sex to get love or money or commitment. Men cannot control their sexual urges, women don't really have sexual urges so it's up to women to allow, but not enjoy, sex or not. This woman is upset because of the abuse, but she's also upset because she feels that she has failed at the one job women aren't supposed to fail at: gatekeeping the sex.

NFP really depends on women successfully gatekeeping, as women are the ones who suffer the most from pregnancy, physically, emotionally, financially, socially, etc. Ultimately, women must succeed at gatekeeping for NFP to work, and as shown above, gatekeeping ain't always easy.

*Other than the 25% failure rate, that is.

**I think that someone might point out that her husband isn't raping her, he's pestering her until she relents, so, in the immortal words of [redacted]: What [Faith is] trying to say in the double-star note is that all "she gave in" apologists can just not bother commenting, because badgering one's life partner until he/she gives in...is NOT getting consent. It's the gatekeeper now being responsible for KEEPING THE PEACE, TOO, SO STFU.

Voices of Me!

Being an atheist named Faith is mostly ridiculous and occasionally hilarious*. Today it's the latter. (thank you to [redacted] for the link.)

Voices of Faith: How do I know what is the true religion?

Voice of Faith: there is no god, therefore, no religion is true. Go, and wonder no more.

The Rev. Duke Tufty, Unity Temple on the Plaza, Kansas City, Mo.: There are two basic ways to know what the true religion is. The first is to let another or others tell you. In most cases their response will be "my" religion is the only true religion.

Voice of Faith: "Most cases"? If you didn't think your religion was the one true religion, why would you believe in it? Well, I guess those friendly universalists who are pretty open about their need to believe in something even if they have no idea whether or not it is real. Unsurprisingly, universalists are pleasant to be an atheist around.

The second way for you to know what is the true religion is to personalize it and do research to discover what the true religion is for you. Read the statement of beliefs, acquaint yourself with the history and determine whether the theology inspires you, empowers you and resonates with your deepest beliefs.

Your spiritual path should be one that impassions you, not imprisons you. It should be one that continually moves you to higher levels of joy, love, peace of mind and harmony. Seek and you will find the spiritual source that is best for you. The one that truly supports your greatest happiness and highest good.

Look, I'm down with the universalism, but "it makes me happy" does not make something true. Unfortunately, "it's the highest good" doesn't make something true, either.

The Rev. Justin Hoye, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church, Nevada, Mo., and St. Bridget's in Rich Hill, Mo: You don't - that's why faith is called for! I can give personal testimonies and historical accounts that could tip the scale toward belief in the person of Jesus Christ. But you can dismiss these professions as biased, unsubstantiated or unreliable. That is, at a certain point you are asked to assent to these claims with an act of faith.

Yeah, look, you could look at the evidence and conclude this is all a bunch of bullshit, but . . . faith!

Faith: "yes?"

Priest "Oh, I didn't mean you."

Faith "Hey, you called for me, I answered. What up?"

Priest "Well, look, I . . ."

Faith "Seriously, are you selling that 'faith is truth if only you believe' bullshit again? That shit's not true."

Priest "Historica-"

Faith "If I believe that I am a invisible pink unicorn does that make it true?"

Priest "That is not a fair comparis-"

Faith "Fine. I have faith, complete faith, that the events as related in Girl Genius are the absolute truth. I even have evidence- look at all these books, and this website and all these people dressed up like the characters! It must be true."

Priest "I really hate you."

Faith "Right back at you, buddy."

A Catholic professes that Jesus Christ is the savior of all and that knowledge of this truth is universally accessible; i.e., this truth is accessible to you and to everyone else.

We say this is possible because faith is in communion with reason, and the church works tirelessly to present her beliefs so that they not only provide direction and, ultimately, salvation, but express a faith that is in concord with reason.

For what definition of reason? I can't . . . I just . . . there is no part of that that is "in concord with reason". I mean, what part of God sacrificed God to God to change a rule God made is "in concord with reason"?

Christian faith is mysterious, yet it resonates with our experience of the human condition. A Catholic would invite you to investigate the claims of the church to see if they speak to your heart and mind.

Evidence is there, along with the reality that men and women throughout the centuries have been so captivated by an encounter with Jesus that they profess him to be true. They - we - have found the truth that sets us free. Our access to this reality comes when we cease looking for undeniable proof and make an act of faith.

People have also, for centuries, professed to be true: faeries, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Odin, ghosts, demons, elementals, magic, telekinesis, telepathy, astrology, homeopathy, I could go on all day. Are all of those things also real? How many people have to believe a thing for how long to become real under your system? Is there some sort of cutoff? More people than accept the Book of Mormon as true, for longer than Islam has been around? C'mon now.

*Sometimes, I get to type bad faith complaints and I giggle the entire time.

Here's Your Problem Right Here

This article contains one paragraph that explains everything that is wrong with the way Catholic hospitals (they're everywhere, and many women's only choice) are run:

Since 1971, Catholic hospitals have been guided by the Ethical and Religious Directives , which detail religious and moral justifications for care extending from conception to death. The interpretation of those directives is the responsibility of ethics committees at the hospitals, and the final arbiter is the local bishop. [emphasis mine.]

Stop and read that again. Who is the final arbiter concerning necessary, even life-saving, medical procedures? A bishop?! Are bishops doctors? Doctors in every possible specialty? No. Are bishops chosen for their unique understanding of diseases, conditions, medical procedures and the like? No. Are bishops ever likely to face a life threatening pregnancy or gynecological issue? No. Are bishops even likely to closely know anyone facing a life threatening pregnancy or gynecological issue? No.

In other words, bishops have no knowledge or training that would make them more able to make such a decision, certainly no more than the woman herself, her doctor, or the ethical board of a hospital, but bishops are the final authority in such matters. And you, or someone you love, may very well find yourself at the mercy of such a man, with no other option available to you.

Fantastic.