The Pope is dope

Ariana said:
Neither. All I'm saying is that a mother is needed at home during the first few months after birth and that maybe a mother needs to stay at home in that period.
Click to expand...
Ah, got you. Different string of this thread.
Here, moms get a one-year maternity leave. There is also an additional parental leave that either parent can take. I want to say it is 12 weeks, but it's been a while, so I'm not sure.
In my view it's essential for young families and it would be a mistake not to take advantage.
 
It is a slightly different string but not entirely. If a woman is the one who stays at home in the beginning, in most cases she will continue to be the primary caregiver later on, partly because she's gained experience and partly because roles within the family itself are more difficult to change than roles within society. Several years later, when and if the family decides to separate, the mother still is the primary caregiver.

Also, in many countries, including Poland and all other ex-communist states, the salary gap between genders is very prominent, making it not affordable for the father to stay at home.
 
I'd still like to go back to the "sex vs gender" thing, because I have the feeling that this is where the root of the problem is. Could it be that things have gone to the extreme that society feels guilty about mothers staying at home and caring for their children regardless of whether it is her own decision or not?
 
Ariana said:
It is a slightly different string but not entirely. If a woman is the one who stays at home in the beginning, in most cases she will continue to be the primary caregiver later on, partly because she's gained experience and partly because roles within the family itself are more difficult to change than roles within society. Several years later, when and if the family decides to separate, the mother still is the primary caregiver.

Also, in many countries, including Poland and all other ex-communist states, the salary gap between genders is very prominent, making it not affordable for the father to stay at home.
Click to expand...

All true, although most of those things are brought on by society because of the biological realities of birth.
Is there a reason why - if society encouraged it through better wages for women and and better leaves for men - the mother couldn't go back to work as soon as she is willing and able, and the father couldn't stay home and bottle-feed and care for his child for the first year of its life?
 
mckindog said:
Is there a reason why - if society encouraged it through better wages for women and and better leaves for men - the mother couldn't go back to work as soon as she is willing and able, and the father couldn't stay home and bottle-feed and care for his child for the first year of its life?
Click to expand...

Of course not, if that's what both parents want. My point was that from a statistical point of view, mothers are more often the parent that stays at home and this is the main reason why children stay with them in case of a divorce - that's all. Not because there's a wide-spread prejudice against fathers taking care of their kids.
 
I have been divorced (with kids) and have friends who have as well. We all essentially got the same spiel from the lawyers. If the mother and father are seen as generally equal, the mother gets the kids. That is what I do not see as fair. Assume older kids (school age) and both parents are working anyway (as is usually the case in a divorce). I am not sure exactly what an answer is, but by default, kids go to Mom, not Dad unless there is something seriously wrong with Mom.
 
LooseCannon said:
No dice. Women aren't the backbone of the family by choice, but because society tells them that's where they need to be. My dad was away too, and I saw more of my mom, but that doesn't mean she should have to be the "ever-present pillar of stability". Just because she was with you doesn't mean that's the role she needs to have.
Click to expand...

Just because she was with me doesn't mean that's the role she needs to have? Do you hear yourself? Then who? My dog? My teenage brother? Should she have done as other neglectful parents and pawn me off to my grandparents? I'm sorry, but that is exactly what she NEEDED to do and not because of "sexist society," but because that is what responsible adults do, they "man-up" no "sexist" pun intended.
 
Ariana said:
Of course not, if that's what both parents want. My point was that from a statistical point of view, mothers are more often the parent that stays at home and this is the main reason why children stay with them in case of a divorce - that's all. Not because there's a wide-spread prejudice against fathers taking care of their kids.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Cases like LC is talking about exist, but I believe they are the product of poor decisions in individual cases, rather than some deep-seated legal bias.
I wonder how many men want the option to be the primary caregiver prior to splitting with their spouse.
 
mckindog said:
I wonder how many men want the option to be the primary caregiver prior to splitting with their spouse.
Click to expand...

I don't think that can be properly evaluated, because according to my personal and no doubt anecdotal observations, the motives of the men may be very, very different.
 
The Vatican's former ambassador to the Dominican Republic has been convicted by a church tribunal of sex abuse and has been defrocked, the first such sentence handed down against a top papal representative.

The Vatican said Friday that Monsignor Jozef Wesolowski was found guilty by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in recent days, and sentenced to the harshest penalty possible against a cleric: laicization, meaning he can no longer perform priestly duties or present himself as a priest.

Wesolowski has two months to appeal. He also faces other charges by the criminal tribunal of Vatican City, since as a papal diplomat he is a citizen of the tiny city state.

The Holy See recalled the Polish-born Wesolowski on Aug. 21, 2013, and relieved him of his job after the archbishop of Santo Domingo, Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez, told Pope Francis about rumors that Wesolowski had sexually abused teenage boys in the Dominican Republic.

Dominican authorities subsequently opened an investigation, but haven't charged him. Poland, too, opened an investigation into Wesolowski and a friend and fellow Polish priest.
( more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jozef-wesolowski-vatican-ex-ambassador-convicted-of-sex-abuse/ )
 
The sex abuse thing isn't my main issue with the Catholic Church.
 
No comment.

Vatican's Approval of Exorcism: A Big Blow To Campaign Against Witch hunting In Africa

The recent approval by Pope Francis of the practice of exorcism has dealt a heavy blow to efforts to combat witch hunting in Africa. At a time the UN and the international community are exploring ways of tackling horrific abuses related to belief in witchcraft, the papal recognition of the association of exorcists comprising 250 priests in 30 countries is a huge set back. It dims the prospects of making witch-hunting history in Africa. In fact, Vatican's approval of exorcism will end up legitimizing this abusive process.

Millions of Africans are catholic and look to the Vatican for guidance in the practice of their faith. So the decision by the pope to recognise exorcism sends very disturbing signals. Many Africans will interpret this development to mean an endorsement of witch hunting because witch hunting is believed to be a form of exorcism.

Witchcraft is part of the demonological narratives in Africa. And most African Catholics claim that witchcraft is a form of evil spirit that can be expelled by priests or pastors.

The catholic church has not really been at the forefront of the witch craze in Africa.

Though the church has always maintained the belief in the devil and the practice of exorcism, the Vatican has not come out expressly this way to endorse the process of expelling the devil. European missionaries who introduced Christianity to Africa did not emphasized so much on the devil or exorcism. They focused mainly on building schools and hospitals as tools of evangelization.

But the fact is that the position of Catholic church in Africa on witchcraft and exorcism has been ambivalent. Many churches have appropriated charismatic forms of Christianity in order to halt the loss of members to Pentecostal churches. Some 'charismatic' Catholics priests 'unofficially' practice exorcism.

But the Pentecostal churches are the ones mainly into the business of preaching about the devil, deliverance and the witch hunting campaign. Pentecostal churches have appropriated the witchcraft narratives into their ministries. They preach that witches exist; that witches are demons that can possess people. And people possessed by the demon of witchcraft can be delivered or exorcised. Pentecostal pastors are the modern day witch hunters.

With this new development at the Vatican, things are going to change. Catholic churches in Africa will now be officially joining the witch finding ministry. We should expect to see many churches across the region become witch hunting centers. The witch hunting catholic priests, who have been practicing on the margins, will be mainstreamed. And this will surely be an unfortunate development for the cause of enlightenment in Africa and the world.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34866283

Here is an interesting article about the amount of change that has actually occurred with the Pope, and the amount of change that is likely to occur.

Essentially, it all depends on how long Pope Francis lives. If he lives long enough to appoint enough people like him, great. If he dies beforehand, the resistance to his new ways will continue, and he will likely be swept away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top