No, really. Actually, the Vatican’s actions argue that they consider it worse than molesting children: priests who only attended ordination ceremonies for women were defrocked at lightning speed; while it took decades of pleading from victims, family members, and bishops to do the same to admitted child rapists.
It’s so true, I often wake up crying in the middle of the night from nightmares about that time I saw a chick in a Roman collar.
Does the RCC even have a valid argument for the ban on ordained women anymore, or are they okay with just naked misogyny? I rarely bother to hear their side, because much like how I know a dog turd probably tastes pretty bad without actually taking a bite from it, I know the RCC’s argument against anything I’m in favor of (and vice versa) is going to be flimsy and rest on a bedrock of centuries-outdated bigotry.
I’m guessing they’re still going with St. Paul’s “women are required to be silent in church” thing, which is a pathetic argument that’s been mostly put to rest*; but it’s still got a skosh more credibility than “Girls are icky!”
*I’m in a hurry to get to the gym, but some good souces about how St. Paul’s words have been twisted and distorted by the patriarchy can be found in Thomas Cahill’s Desire of the Everlasting Hills; or any Liberal Quaker work that explores women’s contributions to the faith — Quakers believe “women” was to be taken symbolically as meaning all of humanity, which is one reason why they worship mostly in silence.