What Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism have in common

A couple weeks ago, news broke that the Catholic church had ruled ordaining a woman an offense punishable by immediate excommunication, putting it in the same category as sexual abuse.  I think it's clear to most that the Catholic church has a woman problem.

But, I think it's equally evident that Orthodox Judaism has a woman problem, and one that doesn't get nearly as much ink, perhaps because Orthodox Judaism is so much smaller of a movement than radical Islam and Catholicism.  Moreover, despite those rumors of a "Jewish establishment," unlike Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism has no single governing body that dictates its tenants.  That doesn't mean some factions of Judaism are any less virulently anti-woman than the worst of the Catholic church.  In fact, echoes of the very same "ordaining a woman is the gravest crime anyone could possibly commit" attitude were evident in a recent NYMag piece on an Orthodox rabbi doing just that, ordaining a woman, Sara Hurwitz (right),  who had completed all of the requirements for becoming an official spiritual leader and religious teacher.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a revered scholar at YU widely known as the foremost authority on Halacha in the United States, raised eyebrows at the RCA [Rabbinical Council of America] convention when he reportedly put the ordination of women in the category of yehareg ve’al ya’avor, a tenet that literally suggests one should opt for death before violating the law, used by rabbis when referring to acts that are absolutely impermissible. “He believes that it is a slippery slope that will lead to the breakdown of traditional Judaism,” explains Marc B. Shapiro, an expert on Orthodoxy.

This is only one individual, but this sentiment seems so clearly ludicrous, it deserves highlighting.  As with the Catholic church's declaration, I have to ask, how can a victimless crime be worthy of such grave punishment?  How can treating a woman as an equal be so blasphemous that one should die before doing it?  The Jewish Star has more on the specifics of the RCA's objections to Hurwitz's ordination:

Child abuse is child abuse, and people who enable and cover up child abuse are criminals

You would think the above statement wouldn't need to be said, but recent behavior by Catholic church officials and defenders have made me think otherwise.  Bill Donohue appeared on Larry King Tuesday to claim that because most of the boys were post-pubescent, it was homosexuality, not child abuse that was plaguing the Catholic church.  Sinead O'Connor quickly put him in his place, asking him to clarify the exact age that demarcated "post-pubescent."  "12 or 13," was the reply.  I cannot even begin to explain how morally repugnant it is to blur the line between homosexuality and child abuse.  But, just to help Donohue and others who may be confused, let me spell out the difference: C-O-N-S-E-N-T.  If you use fear and intimidation to coerce others into sexual acts with you, you are a sex offender.  If you cover such behavior up, you are a criminal.  If you defend it on national television, you are an a**hole.

For more on the abuse and the Church's role in aiding and abetting it, see O'Connor's (an abuse victim herself) excellent opinion piece in the Washington Post.  Over at the NYTimes, Maureen Dowd speculates the church gave up its credibility for lent.  Read about the Vatican's refusal (including the current pope) to defrock a priest who molested over 200 deaf boys, when they had specific knowledge of his crimes, here.  Also check out this 2006 report on the pope's role in covering up abuse.  And, for a different opinion, read an Op-Ed that defends the pope as a part of the solution to the widespread abuse and institutional indifference.

What do you think?  Should the pope resign?  Can the Catholic church really change its ways and get its credibility back?  And do you believe, like me, that both those who committed abuse and those who covered it up should be tried in civil courts?