Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:53:11 +1000 (EST)
From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
Subject: Re: AUT: [Fwd: NACLA: Feminism's Long March]


Katha wrote:

>Dear Bill Bartlett,
> You wonder how the Catholic Church can be so powerful in Latin America,
>and also seem to distinguish Latin America from "the West" and"Western
>culture."

Sorry, freudian slip, I was trying to draw a parallel between the relative
influence of the Catholic Church in rich western countries and the poor
countries of laitin america. I drew the inference that the main factor
influencing how much influence the church has must be economic. This was in
support of my complaint that the article focusses on the surface politics
rather than the underlying economic factors which determine outcomes

>The Catholic Church is powerful in many undeniably Western
>countries --  Ireland, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the United States, not
>to mention Poland, the Phillippines and many African countries. I guess
>I don't understand why you are puzzled that the church has this power.

As I understand it the Church's teachings on reproduction are pretty much
ignored by its flock in wealthy countries such as France and Italy, both
nominally catholic. I know a few catholics personally and they don't even
feel the slightest guilt about it, their church is just not taken seriously
on this issue.

[...]

>  As for differences between men and women on these subjects, I think it
>would be amazing if Latin American (or other) men were as opposed to
>patriarchy as women . After all, patriarchy is the system of giving men
>privileges over women.

I don't doubt it, but I let's explore these privileges in more detail.
Presumably they are economic, privileges usually are. I also wonder how
these privileges fit in to the overall economic context?

[...]

>Abortion and contraception are interesting, and maybe
>slightly anomalous issues, because they  benefit men in obvious ways.

My point would be that they benefit men only under certain economic
conditions. To a rural peasant the reproduction of children, and plenty of
them, is an economic imperative.

[...]

>The church
>supports the whole patriarchal psychology (women are dependent,
>inferior,  made to suffer, responsible for Original Sin, defined by
>motherhood, not really made in God's image etc)-- that's more important
>in winning men's allegiance than the fact that men disagree with it on
>abortion -- after all, men's lives and health are not imperilled by bans
>on birth control and abortion!

But the economic well-being of men AND women is different when they become
wage-workers, more kids to feed is just a cost, with no objective economic
pay-off. When religion becomes an obstactle to social economics I suggest,
it will simply be overwhelmed. Catholocism being a religion of feudal
economic relationships it will (and has) resisted capitalism at every
opportunity for hundreds of years. But capitalism has advanced inexorably
despite the massive political clout of the church.

>   But perhaps I am misunderstanding your objections to jean Franco's
>essay?

Perhaps, or perhaps I am, as you suspect, merely a recalcitrant, and these
are all flimsy justifications. I don't feel entirely confident in my
arguments so even I can't rule it out completely, but I would like to
explore the possibility that there is something in what I say.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---