By David Futrelle
There are a lot of guys out there who not-so-secretly resent women for having bodies that get them all hot and bothered.
Warren Farrell, the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, famously warned men to beware of the “cleavage power” and the “miniskirt power” of young women. Incels and MGTOWs today rail against women “torturing” them by wearing skin-tight yoga pants. Hell, last week I wrote about one horny Redditor who blamed women for tempting men by showing their arms in public.
So what about in insidious threat of shoulders, which in addition to being “the laterally projecting part of the human body formed of the bones and joints with their covering tissue by which the arm is connected with the trunk” are also sometimes nice to look at?
Enter Father Kevin M. Cusick. On Sunday, the priest and former military chaplain caused a bit of a stir on Twitter after he suggested that women shouldn’t show their bare shoulders in church lest the sight of such a tempting bit of skin cause the men and boys to suddenly start feeling a bit funny in their pants.
Naturally, more than a few Twitterers took issue with Cusik’s stance. And so he doubled down, and doubled down again, launching into a full-on meltdown that lasted until this morning.
But he topped even those tweets with his final comment on the subject, in which he compared himself, and the treatment he’d gotten from critics on Twitter, to Jesus getting nailed to the cross. No, really.
As it turns out, Cusick’s not just worried about sexy lady shoulders; he’s also worried that women’s bare feet could give priests boners. Several years ago, you see, the Pope said it was ok to include women and girls in Holy Thursday foot-washing rituals. But Cusick worried that foot-washing priests might get turned on by “cute” lady feet.
That last tweet about washing men’s feet seems just a little bit ironic when one starts poking around a little more in Cusick’s Twitter history.
Because, as it turns out, shoulders and feet aren’t his main obsessions. For every tweet he’s written about the dangers of improperly exposed female flesh, there are dozens (hundreds?) of tweet about the evils of gay men and their dirty doings — both in the Catholic Church and in the world at large. (He has much less to say about lesbians.)
In Cusick’s mind, the Church doesn’t have a pedophile problem; it’s got a “homosexual problem.”
Not only is this “homosexual network” intent on sexually abusing boys; it’s also, in Cusick’s mind, “perverting” the Church’s teachings in order to promote the mortal sin of sodomy.
Apparently the only way to ward off this “homosexualist” menace is with the magic of Latin.
He’s a bit obsessed with the whole sodomy thing.
He also has some, well, interesting views on “so-called ‘trans'” folks. Here’s his reaction to a news story about a trans woman teacher.
And here’s his, well, novel theory about the nature of transness.
Needless to say, he won’t be celebrating Pride month.
But Cusick isn’t just obsessed with sex. His Twitter history is a virtual smorgasbord of unhinged takes on almost every hotbutton social issue. He thinks abortion leads to “bloodthirsty mobs on the streets.”
He regularly links to alarming “news” articles on the alleged evils of migrant Muslim “invaders,” including at least one article from rabid far-right Islamaphobe Pam Geller. His own opinions on the subject are only slightly less rabid than hers:
Needless to say, Cusick also hates feminism, especially when it involves young boys being taught that women’s suffrage was a good thing.
But the strangest thing I found in Cusick’s Twitter history? He’s apparently afraid of being enslaved — by Beto O’Rourke.
It’s a weird and more than slightly unhinged reaction to a young man standing on a car spouting vaguely lefty political platitudes. But, hey, anything to get Cusick’s mind off of sodomy, I guess.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
That “sodomy” thing was already quite accurately (although without approval) explained by @Hester above: “sodomy” is any sex-related sin which is against natural law (and don’t even start with “natural”=”biological” and homosexuality between birds and beasts — as I said before, there’s no time to repeat whole Church cathechism here).
I’m almost sure that in your opinion consensual sex between adults should be excluded not even from “sodomy” but also a “grave sin” category, but that’s not my problem.
Not only (that’s a quote from Mathew 18:6)
Before being nailed to cross Jesus was: falsely accused, laughed at, ridiculled… “Taking ones cross and followin Jesus” means exactly that and every Christrian gets its share.
Really: if you’re still shocked by these tweets, please scroll back to what @Alex said in very first comment.
The Roman Catholic Church actually tried to expel such priests in the 70s and it very nearly led to a schism. Those tensions didn’t go away, either. So the answer to that question might be “They don’t have the power”.
Look up Marcel Lefebre and “sedevacantism” if you’re interested. Lefebre is a charming guy… didn’t just think Vatican II was a big mistake, but also the French Revolution.
I don’t actually care if consenting adults engage in ‘sodomy’, it’s none of my business.
I feel this quote is appropriate here, especially seeing as how the catholic church attempts to govern it’s adherants with their outdated moral code –
lololol are you trying to turn this around so that it’s *my* prudishness about sodomy that’s at fault here? As I said above, I *don’t care*.
What did *he* mean, though? Are you defending what the priest obviously meant, which is him expanding the definition of ‘sodomy’ to mean ‘any sex that isn’t for the express purpose of creating a child, within a marriage that has been done in the catholic church’?
You can’t pretend he didn’t say what he said, and mean what he meant, when we can all read it above. This isn’t a verbal discussion where you can bafflegab your way around the facts, and people can’t check on what was said before.
We can, it’s right up there.
You’re going to have to try a little bit harder.
Re ‘natural law’- nah, son. If you want to bring *that* up, you’re going to have to show how humans are so unnatural that we don’t follow what freaking nature does.
And just to prove the point you desperately don’t want made, have a list of animals in ‘queer’ relationships.
And some more
If you don’t have time to get into church doctrine, maybe you should not start a discussion about church doctrine?
(the doctrine is shitty, btw. Jesus would not approve.)
And? I know this is what catholics believe. I was raised catholic. I’ve heard this from close family members.
I’m shocked that someone would come in here and be all “waaaahhhh catholics are the true oppressed ones wahhhhh”, but /shrug. You do you, I’ll just keep making fun of you.
Consensual sex between adults is not a grave sin. Consensual sex between adults is not a sin at all. If there is sin, it is because those adults are betraying a promise or neglecting a duty. Just as there may be sin in having a nice walk and a cream tea, if you break your promises when you do it. The sex is not a sin.
And now let’s discuss how this priest thinks women do not deserve to have their feet washed, because they are a subjugated class not permitted into the ministry, and how this completely misses the point of washing feet as a Christian ritual.
If you accuse me of trolling by LARP-ing your opposition: you’re wrong.
If you suspect that I want to disturb self-righteous comfort: in this comminity: I never tried to hide it.
Oh, for the love of…this horse shit STILL?!?!
This sort of crap was why I left the church b4 I turned 18 (*way* more years ago than I want 2 admit). Was raised Catholic, went 2 parochial school from kindergarten through 8th grade followed by 4 years of CCD.
I got a 1st rate education in a lot of ways, including an excellent grounding in critical thinking skills. Strangely enough, the priests & nuns weren’t real thrilled when I turned those skills on Church policy & doctrine–imagine my surprise.
The only time I enter a church now is 4 funerals or weddings.
My brother (a cafeteria Catholic married 2 a divorced Catholic wife) keeps looking 4 me 2 be struck by lightning every time I do, but that’s due 2 my witch status.
Didn’t stop him from asking me 2 be my niece’s godmother. I like 2 say this technically makes me her fairy godmother–or at least her Bi one.
Sorry 4 the wall o’ text.
oh! Oh boy! Finally!!! A DEVIL’S ADVOCATE!!! Lo, these long years, that is what we have been crying out for!
“Won’t someone take a contrary position, just so we can have a good argument!” We have often cried. “They don’t need to believe it, we just need to have our echo chamber disturbed!!!!”
And yzek heard the call, and answered it. The hero we deserve!
Again, I’m just laughing at you, you are completely ridiculous.
As I said before: don’t even start with “Natural law” == “Laws of nature” false argument.
Then you define it. You brought it up, you need to define it.
Repeating something desn’t make it more true. Who do you want to convince: me or yourself?
Sorry, I thought I’d fixed the dang italics over kill, but apparently not.
My sincerest apologies–sigh.
So the other priests that Cusick quoted and opposed were not following the catholic doctrine? Who gets to arbitrate?
Also, are those parts of the catholic doctrine?
– It’s disgraceful to wash feet of protestants and women
– The French are currently being slaughtered by invaders
Because Cusick seems to be spewing a lot of hateful shit, yet you seem to be convinced that an attack on him is an attack on the whole of Catholicism.
Were you under the impression that I’m a biblical literalist? Sorry.
I know the passage isn’t an invitation to literally blind oneself (hence my “;)”). But at the same time, it’s undeniable that Jesus directly says that the sin is on the part of the ogler
Well, in Cusick’s own words, he cares about protecting “purity of men”. That’s it. Why would he lie? By pointing out the Mt 18:6 passage you’ve already invested more theological consideration into this than he did.
However, dress codes in churches aren’t there to protect anyone from boners. If it were so, any kind of beachwear would be forbidden for Catholics, and it clearly isn’t.
Keep in mind: the point of this post is not to opinion on what one should or should not wear in church during Mass, but to mock a priest’s hateful and ignorant opinions. Like I said: if his justifications weren’t misogynistic, we wouldn’t be here
Well, it’s not really QED unless you show how. Asserting that it MUST INCLUDE doesn’t count.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=natual+law+catholic+definiction
I won’t do “Catholic 101” here, sorry.
@yzek – Natural law is a blunt and useless instrument when it comes to determining which sex acts are “sinful” and which are allowed. Being a form of deontological ethics, it restricts itself to a few rare universal principles and doesn’t have much to say about specific human behaviors, which nearly always require exceptions. It has no room for considerations, intentions, or circumstances.
Thw same Natural Law argument that declares homosexuality a sin because all sex must be for the purpose of procreation eliminates a vast spectrum of sexual behavior. Masturbation, contraception, oral sex, anal sex, sex during menstruation or past menopause, infertile persons having sex must all be forbidden as well. Priests like Cusick know this is ridiculous, so to temper the absurdity they insist that sex merely has to be “open” to reproduction. They will say, for example, that sex with a post-menopausal woman is OK because it’s still “open” to procreation, based on the Biblical stories of Sara where God works a miracle in a woman of advanced age. But if we include miracles in our rationale, than any kind of sex must be “open” to procreation, because anything is possible with God.
In order to be consistent, you have to treat a wide array of sexual behaviors as being equally condemnable with homosexuality. Natural law completely fails to make the connection between what is natural and what is good. By its logic, rape is not a sin, because it’s just as “open to procreation” as consensual PIV sex between married people. As long as Tab A goes in Slot B, it’s all good.
Conservative moral reasoning moves exclusively in this sort of vacuum, where it focuses on the narrowest technical definition of coitus and has nothing to say on the morality of the circumstances around that act (hand-holding, flirting, foreplay, deep emotional bonds). This is why increasing numbers of people are finding it irrelevant.
“Bad faith” includes, for instance, removing the substantive argument from a post so you can make a cheap shot about the rhetoric.
I’m not doing your work for you, my dude. Buttercup has now explained it, so I’m going with their explanation of it being stupid.
You had your shot to make your point, but you were just too lazy to.
OH WELL.
@Beyond Ocean
QFT
@ yzek:
“You don’t understand the doctrine” is a non-argument meant to quash dialog without engaging in any. Not many here are concerned enough with the subtle distinctions in Catholic Church doctrine which allow the church to come and go as it pleases, to be sure.
Myself, I believe we should strip the church(es… allof’em) of their tax exemption. If they truly do provide enough of a service to enough people, they will survive… if not, they will die a natural death.
“You don’t understand the doctrine” is the same complaint as “You’re not listening”. We understand fine, we heard you fine, we disagree.
A hello and welcome to @Hester – the welcome package is over there *points vaguely*. Pull up a chair! I’m sorry, it might be a little hard.
The amusing thing about his self-confessed troll is that when David eventually bans him, after everyone has had their fun, he’s probably going to think that he ‘won’.
[quote]Myself, I believe we should strip the church(es… allof’em) of their tax exemption. If they truly do provide enough of a service to enough people, they will survive… if not, they will die a natural death.[/quote]
Agreed. The mere existence of ‘mega-churches’ speaks to said churches, and the religion they represent, as being a business rather than a religious institution.
You managed to mention the only statements which seem really controversial to me:
– feet washing might have more symbolic meaning that this father wants them to
– immigration policy should be more a concern of French state than French church
… which somehow included many of what every faithful Catholic (not only this particular priest) believes and practices, because David finds them soooo funny and hilariously “sex-obsessed”.
It’s his right to think so, but it’s mine to regard that as anti-catholic bigotry.
That’s a concern for your country (USA, I presume) — in my country churches are taxed and doing quite well.
@yzek
If the shoe fits…
I don’t give a shit about what the church considers to be a “grave sin”.
Cusick is saying that anyone who supports the LGBT community or anyone who condones non-procreative sex (which would include priests who support the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV) also tacitly supports child sexual abuse, since all acts of sodomy are apparently interchangeable. You support that view?