I have written before that the ordination of women is the flagship issue for liberals.
So long as Pope Francis won’t change Church “policy”, he will remain in their dog house.
Some conservatives frown when the Pope gets out over his skiis in matters of economics, but liberals attack Francis when he upholds defined faith and morals.
What you will see here after is a house divided.
On lack of vocations, Francis’ diagnosis comes up short
Like many who care passionately about a fully inclusive priesthood in the Catholic church, I read paragraph 104 of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium with deep sadness, though not surprise. [Remember when I wrote that Francis had created a split on the left? Remember also that Sr. Maureen Fiedler already attacked Francis on this point … as the surrogate for the NSR. The editors work thought surrogates.]
“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion,” Francis wrote, “but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.” [For true liberals, priesthood is about power, nothing less. That is one reason why the ordination of women is a liberal flagship issue.]
“It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power ‘we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness,’ ” the document continues. “The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all.
“The configuration of the priest to Christ the head — namely, as the principal source of grace — does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others.”
[And now the Popette speaketh...] Much as Francis would like to erase the dynamic of domination from the priesthood, his teaching will remain unrealistic if he continues to reinforce an unjust power structure [DING! Say da magic woid, win a hundred dahlahs!] in which only celibate males are permitted to consecrate the Eucharist.
Even as Francis perpetuates the same rigid restrictions on who may and may not answer God’s calling to the priesthood, just three paragraphs later, in section 107, he goes on to blame the “dearth of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life” on “a lack of contagious apostolic fervour in communities which results in a cooling of enthusiasm and attractiveness.” 
Apparently for the pope, “vocations” are limited to the number of people in Roman Catholic seminaries or novitiate programs. He seems unaware that if he were to look into divinity schools and graduate programs in theology and ministerial formation, he would find no lack of Catholic young adults with a fervent desire to devote themselves fully to serving the church. [They can't do so as priests. Too bad, Jamie.]
Read the rest there, if you can stand it. You’ll find a lot of whining about unfairness and an exaltation of lesbianism.
Watch for her points that “real” men don’t join seminaries as long as “real women” aren’t allowed in priesthood. No, really.
I’ll leave you with this:
IF… IF Jamie were right about His Holiness’ blindness concerning women, then it must also be that he can’t be trusted when it comes to any other aspects of “justice”.
Therefore, how can NSR agree with Miss Manson?