Boston Globe: another article on the invalid ordination of women

The other day I posted about the illicit, invalid attempt at ordaining women which was to take place in Boston.  The Boston Globe reporter was, in my opinion, both sloppy and biased in his work.

Today there is another article, by the same writer.  Let’s see if there is a difference.

My emphases and comments.

Group claims [Right!  This is a change from the first article, which basically accepted the premise that the breakaway group was actually ordaining.] to ordain women priests in unsanctioned ceremony
By Michael Paulson
Globe Staff / July 20, 2008

A group advocating for the ordination of women this afternoon held a ceremony in a packed Protestant church in Boston at which it declared [That's fair.  They do "declare" that, even though they are wrong.] three women to be Catholic priests and a fourth woman to be a deacon.

The ceremony, like several others that have taken place around the world over the last six years, was denounced by the Roman Catholic church, and critics said the event was a stunt with no religious significance. [Well... it does have religious significance.  It is invalid, but it is religiously significant because it reveals the confusion and error that dominates some breakaway groups.  This muddies the waters of what "Catholic" means, and what priesthood really is about.] The Catholic Church has consistently taught [In the last article the reporter used language of policy and statements, rather than teaching.] that only men can be ordained as priests, and the Archdiocese of Boston said that the women who participated in today’s ceremony had automatically excommunicated themselves by participating in what it said was an invalid ordination ceremony.

But the women who participated in the event, along with the several hundred people who spent nearly three hours in the sweltering, non-air-conditioned Church of the Covenant, said they rejected the excommunications, and believed that the women had been validly ordained. [Whatever.] The women were vested with white chasubles and red stoles and greeted with a standing ovation as they were declared to be priests; they then helped preside over a service at which they declared bread and wine to be consecrated and offered what they said was Communion to anyone who wished to receive it.

The ceremony was organized by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an organization that is not recognized by the Roman Catholic church. Catholic church officials say the women are not Catholic, their ordinations are not real, and any sacraments they attempt to celebrate, including today’s Eucharist, are invalid[Very clear.  That is what the Church says.]

The Womenpriests organization says their ordinations are legitimate because Catholic bishops in good standing ordained their first members to become female priests and bishops. Therefore, they argue, the women being ordained can claim apostolic succession, or direct descent from Jesus’s apostles.  [Yes.  They claim that.  But even if some dopey or senile Catholic bishop is willing to do something so foolish as to pretend to ordain women, they would be no more ordained than a yak or a bowl of peach cobbler.  Women can't be ordained priests.  They can go through ceremony after ceremony and at the end they are still not ordained.]

The organization has not released the name of the bishops it says consecrated the first women bishops, saying they would face sanction by the Vatican, but says it will release the names once the male bishops die.  [Could they be lying?  I'm just asking.]

Critics say today’s ordinations are not valid because women can not be ordained. [I would not so much say "critics" as "people with their heads screwed on in the right direction".]

C.J. Doyle, of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called the ceremony “a sacrilegious parody of Holy Orders conducted at a Protestant church by a collection of apostates misappropriating the Catholic name.”  [Wow.  Nicely done.]

“One must not only be a male to be a Catholic priest, one must be a Catholic,” [Well... one has to be baptized for sure.] Doyle said. "The performers in this theater of propaganda [!] are neither. These women ought to have the intellectual honesty to admit that they left the Catholic Church some time ago. Whatever publicity value today’s exercise has, it must be measured against both the manifest fraudulence and the irredeemable hopelessness of their cause.” [Perhaps this fellow should be the spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston!]

But the women make the contested claim that there is historical evidence of female priests in the early church, [Wrong.  There is no "evidence" of this in the Catholic Church.  They can misinterpret all sorts of mosaics or frescos, it doesn't change the fact that there have never been women priests in the Catholic Church.  Some heretical, schismait groups attempted this, admittedly.] so that the ordination of women is “nothing new.”  [WHAT?!?]

“Why is Rome so upset about us? Because they know the ordinations are valid,’’ [ROFL!] said Bridget Mary Meehan, spokeswoman for Roman Catholic Womenpriests. “We are not intimidated. We feel so strongly. Nothing can stop the Holy Spirit.’’  [This is blasphemy.]

Three women were declared to be priests at the ceremony today: Gloria Carpeneto of Baltimore, Judy Lee of Fort Myers, Florida, and Gabriella Velardi Ward of New York City. A fourth woman, Mary Ann McCarthy Schoettly of Newton, NJ, was declared a deacon.

The women did not pledge obedience or chastity [Big deal.] – the promises made by Roman Catholic priests. One was introduced to the congregation by her daughter; another by her husband.

The ceremony was presided over by Dana Reynolds of California and Ida Raming of Germany, both of whom have been declared bishops by Roman Catholic Womenpriests. But Catholic church officials say the women are neither bishops nor Catholic – that they too have been automatically excommunicated as a result of their actions.

“We know only too well in how many ways Vatican church leaders refuse to acknowledge the equality in Christ that God has established between men and women, [Here is a basic problem.  This is not an issue of "equality".  There is a difference between "equality" and "identity".] and how they constantly try to reimpose the precedence of men over women, which is unchristian,’’ [These kooks will always reduce the sacred to the worldly and read the Church through the lens of political categories.] Raming said. “We give witness to the whole world that it is not male gender which is the prerequisite for a valid ordination, but faith and baptism, the foundation of our dignity and equality.’’ [This is a variation of the marxist strain of feminism.  Their "witness" is really a code word for "struggle" and they replace classes with sexes. ("Gender" is a misused linguistic category).]

Reynolds called the ceremony an act of “prophetic obedience,” [That is a phrase worthy of Satan.] declared that “today we are turning another page of history in the Roman Catholic Church,” and urged the gathering “Let us begin a revolution of hope here and now in Jesus’ name.’’  [More blasphemy.  But note that she uses the word "revolution".]

The ceremony was held in a venerable Protestant church, the Church of the Covenant, which is affiliated with both the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ.

The interim pastor of the church, the Rev. Jennifer Wegter-McNelly, declared the ordination of women “an important part of this church’s identity,’’ and said “we stand with you today.’’

The former president of the Massachusetts conference of the United Church of Christ, the state’s largest Protestant denomination, was among several Protestant clergy who attended the ceremony to express their support for the women seeking ordination as Catholic priests.

“If it looks like discrimination, if it acts like discrimination, and if it feels like discrimination, it is discrimination,’’ said the Rev. Nancy S. Taylor, [Unless you are so deeply confused that you don't know what a duck... er um... discrimination really is.] the former conference president, who is now senior minister of Old South Church. “Prejudice in liturgical clothing is still prejudice.’’

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

 

This is a far better article.  It more accurately communicates the positions of both sides.

Meanwhile, also in the Boston Globe, there was a slightly weasely correction printed about the earlier article.

Clarification: The main headline on a report in yesterday’s City and Region section may have led to the erroneous impression that three women will be recognized as priests by the Roman Catholic Church after their ordination tomorrow. As the report and a subordinate headline made clear, the women’s status after the ordination is a matter of dispute. Although the organization hosting the ceremony will consider the women to be Catholic priests, the Vatican and the Archdiocese of Boston will regard them as having excommunicated themselves and therefore as being neither Catholic nor priests.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Boston Globe: another article on the invalid ordination of women

  1. Austin says:

    So if the name of the original ‘consecrating’ bishop is released, will he be disinterred and removed from the cathedral crypt that he will likely be buried in on the grounds that he excommunicated himself by his actions while alive?

  2. Ann says:

    Thank you Fr. Z for your clear comments and for finding the one decent article on the event. Every article I found was so biased it was worthless. I send my friends links to your site, which as I had hoped when I came in to look would have a sensible response. I wish more priests took things on a directly as you do. Clarity is such a pleasure.

  3. I live in the Boston-area, and have become sick of the coverage this is getting. Every single news station has been talking about it like it’s real. They have been interviewing the women too. I’m surprised the Globe has such a good article about it, but I’ll take it.

    BTW, do these women claim to be Catholic? As in baptized and raised in the Church? Has anyone bothered to ask?

  4. Brian Day says:

    So if the name of the original ‘consecrating’ bishop is released, will he be disinterred and removed from the cathedral crypt that he will likely be buried in on the grounds that he excommunicated himself by his actions while alive?

    After the Bishop’s name has been released, the Church will ask him if he did “consecrate” any womenpriests. Ooops, they can’t – he’s dead. Just pick any name of a deceased Bishop and claim that he was the one to perform the consecrations. No denial is possible. Perfect.

    —-

    Since Michael Paulson wrote a much better article this time, if anyone is so inclined, drop a line at the paper and tell him so. His email is: mpaulson@globe.com

  5. I would raise one side issue and that is saying that the notion that the women are no longer Catholic. If they baptized Catholics, then they were given a mark on the soul at baptism (provided it wasn’t done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier), that can’t simply be discarded or removed. Nothing, even excommunication, removes that mark.

    It’s just a technical point during a time that people like to say that, “you can’t be Catholic if you are fill in the blank

    There are behaviors that are incompatible with Catholicism, such as being supportive, or even indifferent to abortion, and participating in pretend ordinations of women. However, it doesn’t mean they are no longer Catholic.

  6. Aelric says:

    I wrote to Mr. Paulson a few days ago regarding this issue. He kindly wrote a reply and included my remarks on his blog.

    I believe that he was not clear on the distinction between the issue of invalidity and the canonical penalty of excommunication for the crime of a simulation of a sacrament. Also, I believe that the original article was too “Hegelian” insofar as it tried to treat “both sides” equally. The point being that to treat a handful of dissenters as equal to the teaching authority of a Church with 2000 years of unbroken (T)tradition was itself a biased judgment.

    In any case, I was pleasantly surprised that Mr. Paulson took the trouble to respond to my email and that he seems to have been willing to consider and acknowledge the points raised by quite a few readers.

  7. Augustine says:

    When Googling Gloria Carpeneto one discovers that less than a year ago she led a retreat for the Ignatian volunteers in the Maryland Jesuit province. How wonderful (not) that the Society of Jesus is so inclusive as to raise up as a spiritual leader one who denies the teaching of Holy Father, whom the Society is vowed to obey, and the deposit of faith as established by Our Lord, whose Name they bear.

  8. Aelric says:

    ^
    I should have said: \”he was not clear in the original article on the distinction …

    For what (little) it may be worth, this was what I wrote to Mr. Paulson:

    \”Your article failed to make an important distinction: the Catholic Church both teaches definitively (e.g. in John Paul II\’s Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) and encodes in her law that sacred ordination is validly received by baptized males c.f. canon 1024 of the Code of Canon Law. Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly. Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus. The penalty of excommunication is imposed for the canonical crime of simulating a sacrament. Please issue a clarification to the article stating that the Catholic Church clearly teaches that: (1) such a simulacrum (of a woman receiving \’ordination\’ to the priesthood) is invalid in itself as well as; (2) constitutes a canonical crime punishable by automatic (latae sentenciae) excommunication.\”

  9. Aelric says:

    By the way, not only are these women excommunicated for the offense of bestowing/receiving attempted ordination (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071219_attentata-ord-donna_en.html), they are interdicted for violation of Canon 1378 paragraph 2:

    Ҥ2. The following incur a latae sententiae penalty of interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae penalty of suspension:

    1/ a person who attempts the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice though not promoted to the sacerdotal order;”

    As these women are not in the sacerdotal order (objectively) they thus incur the latae sententia penalty of interdict for “attempting the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice” as apparently witnessed by many.

  10. JM says:

    Reynolds called the ceremony an act of “prophetic obedience,” [That is a phrase worthy of Satan.]

    “prophetic obedience” reminds me very much of Kung’s theology.

  11. PNP, OP says:

    “Just pick any name of a deceased Bishop and claim that he was the one to perform the consecrations. No denial is possible. Perfect.” Doesn’t matter if he could confirm or deny the invalid acts. If every pope since Peter laid hands on a woman and prayed his heart out that she be ordained a priest, she still wouldn’t be a priest. In seminary we had a theology of priesthood prof who went on and on about how we shouldn’t understand ordination as an “ontological change” but rather as an “ordering of gifts to Christian leadership.” I could never understand the big deal about the ontological change stuff until one day I realized that the progs have to get rid of the notion that sacraments confer indelible character. Why? Because this is the traditional objection to women being ordained priests…they are the wrong kind of matter to receive the indelible character of Christ as head of his Church. Also, undermining the notion of indelible character and ontological change helps to reduce the Catholic priesthood to a mere ministerial function rather than a more lofty priestly identity. Again, part of the push for Protestantizing the Roman clergy. Fr. Philip, OP

  12. mariadevotee says:

    If they thought the “sweltering, non-airconditioned Church of the Covenant” was hot just wait.

  13. Pleased as Punch says:

    Diane,

    Although doubtless nobody disputes that baptism leaves an ineradicable mark on
    the soul, I think you are mischaracterizing the issue of Catholicity. If Baptism
    is all it takes, then according to your logic (at least as I understand it)
    every validly baptized person in the world is a Catholic. What about Tertullian
    and Martin Luther and every other obstinate heretic? Does it make any sense
    to speak of them as Catholics after they have fallen into heresy? These women
    have clearly and willfully engaged in activities contrary to Catholic teaching,
    and thus are manifest heretics. They do not believe what the Church believes.
    Therefore, they are not Catholics. I\’m sure this can be put with a great deal
    more theological precision and subtlety, but I believe this is the core of the matter.

  14. Will says:

    The women did not pledge obedience or chastity.

    Somehow this amused me. If they can see their way clear to claim that they’re priests, disposing of these requirements would be childsplay. “Look! Anybody can be a priest — no sacrifice or self-restraint required!”

  15. Bill Belloc says:

    I really don’t understand the point of stunts like this. The participants must know that their so called status will never recognized by the Church. If this is really what they want, they should just join the Episcopal / Church of England and they would be right at home.

  16. William says:

    Diane at Te Deum, You’re correct. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. When one is excommunicated, and individual cuts himself/herself off from the sacramental life (can’t get to heaven without it) of the Church until he/she makes a good confession, repents, is contrite and is subsequently absolved from the “separating” offense. Though excommunicated, the offending soul is still very much under the sway and control of Holy Mother Church. These poor, misguided women have jeopardized the very salvation of their immortal souls, and we must pray for them.

  17. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    What penalties if any are incurred by those who attended the fake ordination in support of these women as witnesses? Thanks.

  18. Dan says:

    I personally feel discriminated against because of that silly little law that says that one must have a license to practice medicine.

    I wonder if any of these priestesses would allow me to practice medicine on them.

  19. Brian Day says:

    Fr. Powell,

    My apologies for not being clear. I know that the “ordinations” are invalid – period. The first poster, Austin, asked about whether or not this soon to be named deceased Bishop would be disinterred.

    My response was partially a response to Austin and a comment on the womenpriest strategy. I doubt that the Bishop would be disinterred on the word of these women without the ability of the Bishop to refute the charges. Plus the the womenpriests can claim that Bishop ‘X’ consecrated women bishops without the ability of Bishop X to deny/refute the claims. It’s a “perfect” strategy for the womenpriests. I am sorry that the sarcasm of the original post did not come through. Sorry.

  20. PMcGrath says:

    C.J. Doyle, of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called the ceremony “a sacrilegious parody of Holy Orders conducted at a Protestant church by a collection of apostates misappropriating the Catholic name.” … [Perhaps this fellow should be the spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston!]

    Only a spokesman? Heck, he should be Archbishop of Boston. Or Archbishop or Bishop of someplace in this country. Oh well. The chances are he’s probably married, or at very least an unordained layman, so such an appointment would be unlikely. Still, one can hope.

  21. Chironomo says:

    Even in it’s correction, the Boston Globe cannot bring itself to state the truth, but has to maintain that “the women’s status after the ordination is a matter of dispute”…. WHAT?? Where is the dispute about their status? They are clearly not Priests because the only position that matters here is the Catholic Church’s position. It is not as though the Church says “no you’re not” and they say “yes we are” and so it is still up in the air! They are not priests… period. The question of whether they are excommunicated may be in dispute since one has to be Catholic in the first place to be excommunicated, and it is not clear where they are in respect to that.

    Kudos to the author though… his “corrected” article is a grand improvement. It could be made better with the substitution of the phrase “mistakenly claimed” in place of “declared”, and “pretend” in place of “believe”. As in the following…

    “A group advocating for the ordination of women this afternoon held a ceremony in a packed Protestant church in Boston at which it mistakenly claimed three women to be Catholic priests and a fourth woman to be a deacon.”

    “But the women who participated in the event, along with the several hundred people who spent nearly three hours in the sweltering, non-air-conditioned Church of the Covenant, said they rejected the excommunications, and pretend that the women had been validly ordained.”

    BTW… wouldn’t they have to go through seminary, or can any Catholic man get a Bishop to declare him a priest without any formation or discernment? I don’t think that even MEN have that right!

  22. Thomas says:

    Sadly, I know a few family who believe this nonsense, and it is virtually impossible to say anything to even put a dent in their belief that they are right and the Church for millenia was and is wrong. Please pray for my godmother who is among them.

  23. Ad Orientem says:

    This was almost a breath of fresh air by media and press standards. Would I have written it differently? Yes. But I can honestly say that this was, by and large, a fair and accurate piece.

    ICXC
    John

  24. Kazimer says:

    Father Z:

    Excellent post.

    Question:

    I want to send an email to the author of the article ,Michael Paulson, to express my desire that he reports the truth ( he is getting better) and to write an article providing Catholic Church’s stance. More specifically, I want to refer him to your analysis and to see if he would grant you an inteview.

    In your estimation do you think this would be a good idea and worthwhile for me to do?

    The author could simply ignore my email or delete it,but I feel compelled to write.

    Also, would you be open to being interviewed for a follow up story by this same author?

    Thank you.

    Kaz

  25. Warren says:

    Brian, the sarcasm came through loud and clear. :-) Well summarized, I thought.

    Thomas, as is the often the case, people get misinformed and that information leads to an entrenched attitude. You have correctly identified the issue: authority. By what authority do we/they claim to represent the correct position?

    Unfortunately, those “wimmin priestesses” have bought into a series of lies. One only has to look at their website in order to be amazed by the mental gymnastics they have to do in order to justify their erroneous beliefs.

    By contrast, don’t overlook the obvious. This can be a time for you to deepen your faith and commitment to Christ and His Church.

    Rather than tackling the issue head on, nurture in your friends and godmother a love for Jesus and through Him His Church. We all know the Church is composed of saints and sinners. The readings this past Sunday remind us that God is patient with us. If you simply remain faithful to the Church’s teaching and make yourself available for conversation, having on hand links like catholic.com, good things can happen.

    It’s difficult to remain detached when circumstances involve those close to us. It may seem too casual to suggest that you cut them some slack, but go slow and be assured that prayers are going up for your godmother. She’s fortunate to have a faithful godson as an intercessor, her “saving grace”. As a wise old Monsignor said to me: “It only takes one saint to turn things around.”

  26. TJ says:

    “I really don’t understand the point of stunts like this. The participants must know that their so called status will never recognized by the Church. If this is really what they want, they should just join the Episcopal / Church of England and they would be right at home.”

    That’s just it, the stunt is the point! Radical feminists don’t care a fig about actually being priests. Their agenda is strictly about destroying anything and everything that is oriented towards men. Once that happened, they’d simply walk away to the next male-only windmill. You may recall the lawsuit some years back in Connecticut against the state because dog tags were designed like fire hydrants, which they claimed was sexist! Think of the gender battles if men had the same mindset as those harpies. Then all of the thousands of women-only businesses, organizations, government programs, special events, fundraisers, etc., etc. would be fair game to the same nonsense.

  27. Deusdonat says:

    After the Bishop’s name has been released, the Church will ask him if he did “consecrate” any womenpriests. Ooops, they can’t – he’s dead. Just pick any name of a deceased Bishop and claim that he was the one to perform the consecrations. No denial is possible. Perfect.

    Brian – you and I were thinking the same thing. Unless, and only unless, this bishop who’s name is yet to be revealed (oooh! the suspense!) left specific documented writings to the effect that a) he did perform the ordination rite on these women, going so far as to name them and b) he did so in a clear state of mind (i.e. he endorses the concept of “female priests”) should we even bat an eye at the thought of such a bishop even existing. It sounds to me like a big propaganda stunt which will eventually be exposed for the hoax that it is. I am not discounting the fact that there are other Milingo’s in the church who are capable of such debauchery. But this story simply smacks of deception at its core.

  28. Brian Walden says:

    Where’s the outrage from other members of the PCUSA and UCC that one of their churches is interfering with another religious group? If the tables were turned and a Catholic parish hosted an event that mocked some denomination’s liturgy there would be near riots. The silence is particularly loud in this case because liberal denominations such as the PCUSA and UCC should, by their own beliefs, be against judging another group’s religious practices.

  29. joan says:

    OOOO… and their capes would really be uncool and ofcourse, invalid.

  30. Deusdonat says:

    That’s just it, the stunt is the point! Radical feminists don’t care a fig about actually being priests. Their agenda is strictly about destroying anything and everything that is oriented towards men. Once that happened, they’d simply walk away to the next male-only windmill.

    I personally don’t like to sound mysogenistic by talking about “radical feminists”. I think certain groups have an agenda, and some are more radical than others. And when their radical agenda turns to fanaticism, you can watch all logic and reason simply evaporate to expose it for what it is.

    An example: I remember years back when the RU 486 (i.e. the “abortion pill”) had been released in Europe, there were pro-abortion groups here in the US who of course lobbied to have it legalised immediately. They were so desperate to further their cause that they had a “pregnant” woman fly to France, get a perscription for the drug, then fly back to the US before she had ingested it. Of course, all the media were alerted (as were the DEA authorities) who confiscated it and arrested her at the airport. Had this woman truly been concerned (or even pregnant) she would have dealt with all of this out of the spotlight. But it was all a publicity stunt to further their agenda.

  31. Dan says:

    “Think of the gender battles if men had the same mindset as those harpies. Then all of the thousands of women-only businesses, organizations, government programs, special events, fundraisers, etc., etc. would be fair game to the same nonsense.”

    I’ve got an idea…. maybe its’ time that men demanded THEIR right to abort their sperm cell – whether or not an egg has been fertilized.

  32. Joe says:

    “Where’s the outrage from other members of the PCUSA and UCC that one of their churches is interfering with another religious group?” Where’s the outrage from other members of the PCUSA and UCC that one of their churches claims to have been used to confer that most papist of institutions, the Priesthood? Surely Presbyterians who don’t believe in the sacramental Priesthood anyways a fortiori don’t believe in female Sacramental Priests?

  33. Andy says:

    I was just wondering. If the one fellow in the article says they are not Catholics. Later it seems to imply the women are Catholics who have left the Church. If they are Catholics initiated into the Church and they left, I wonder if they went to confession prior to the “ordination.” Is confession required prior to ordination? If that’s the case then even if they could be ordained they couldn’t be until confession.

  34. mysticalrose says:

    Thanks for the commentary Fr. Z. I would add that not only are these women employing the classic Marxist dialectic as a central part of their argument, but they are also accepting Luther’s relationship between baptism and priesthood, thus undercutting the real sacramentality of Holy Orders. Whoever is baptized can be a priest according to feminist and protestant theology. The whole fake some-bishop-somewhere-ordained-me deal is just a sham. Which, of course, begs the question — why don’t they just join the episcopalians and be done with it. . . . unless the real endgame is to destroy the Catholic Church . . .

  35. patrick f says:

    Folks, the fact the women claim they will “reject the excommunications”, shows the state right there they are in. They not only reject church teaching, but reject church discipline. Any male who was in that state, would also be in an illicit consecration I would think.

    I think the end game is pride. They see the priesthood as something that is held from them, and they see the church hierarchy as some big bad chauvanist party determined to bring them down. Thats the whole spin of the fem movement in general. They see equal as being the same, but equality is not being the same.

    This is all due to 1) poor catechism , both in schools and after (my catechism in gradeschool consisted of coloring pictures of jesus on a donkey, thank the Good Lord I bought a catechism when I was 16). People dont know many about the real presence. Look at the way people behave. This past sunday, I saw a woman walk in, who was barely keeping herself inside her shirt so to speak, and her son was wearing a side ways baseball cap. Both went to communion that way. Thats how people see the presence of the Lord. They dont understand the real presence, thus we go to point 2

    2) “Reduction” of the holy office of the priesthood to a function rather then a spiritual quality. When you reduce a vocation to a function, it gives the enemy fuel. then those who feel “repressed” can say you are not including them, after all a priest is only doing a job in their eyes. Its not a job, its ministry. Sweeping the church is a Job, Offering the Sacrifice from calgary, that’s special, and certainly isnt in the same plainer existence as sweeping the church.

    In Many ways one can see this crisis as being almost as detrimental as the gnostic heresy. It is just that, heresy. When are we collectively (as in people who dont necessarily frequent these blogs) going to recognize it for what it is again? When you deny the priesthood or try to change it, you deny the Church Christ instituted. Period.

  36. Annibale says:

    Illicit I’ll grant you, but it seems that succession was followed. It’s probably best to keep the arguments regarding liceity and validity separate. The first is a no-brainer, but the second is intriguing.

  37. Aelric says:

    Annibale,

    Canon 1024 is “intriguing”: A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly. Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus .

    I’ll avoid any comments regarding “no brainers”.

  38. Markor says:

    Just curious – this is not rhetorical: If I was ordained a priest by a bishop would the ordination be invalid or valid? If valid, would I be suspended?

    I’m a married Catholic Male.

    Thanks.

  39. LCB says:

    Doyle needs his own blog. I would read it daily.

  40. Phil Steinacker says:

    The renegade group “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” has posted a lot of suspect material on their website (http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/). On the front page is a section called “True and False About Women’s Ordinations.”

    The relevant item regarding the “game plan” to validate their claims of “legitimate” consecrations and ordinations is here (I won’t inflict the rest of it upon you):

    FALSE: These ordinations as women priests are not recognized or valid.

    TRUE: The group “RC Womenpriests” receives its authority from Roman Catholic bishops who stand in full Apostolic Succession. These bishops bestowed sacramentally valid ordinations on the women listed above. All the documents pertaining to these ordinations have been attested and notarized. All minutes of the ordinations, including data about persons, Apostolic Succession, and rituals, together with films and photos are deposited with a Notary Public.

    As Fr Z said, even if they found a bishop to do the deed – and even if they notorize their own (worthless) certification of same – “they would be no more ordained than a yak or a bowl of peach cobbler.

    After all, it is axiomatic that while you can always tune a piano, you can’t tuna fish.

  41. Melody says:

    Speaking theoretically, let’s pretend that women could be validly ordained and that apostolic succession was maintained.
    No vow of obedience= Invalid ordination. Am I correct?

  42. B. says:

    Regarding the question whether the first of those female bishops were “consecrated” by a real Catholic bishop, it is interesting to see how this all began.
    When the first of them were “ordained womenpriests”, they also claimed that the ordinations would be done by a Catholic bishop, but then it came out that the ordinations were done by Romulo Braschi, a vagant bishop, who puts his hands on anyone willing to pay his demanded fees (which was also the reason the charged money from the people attending the ceremony). For a while they kept claiming that Romulo Braschi was a Catholic Bishop, when that claim could no longer be upheld they suddenly started to claim that there was another bishop involved who was a “real Catholic bishop” (remember, those were only priestly “ordinations”, so how would they be done by two bishops?).

    Gisela Forster, one of the women, gave a really hilarious interview to CNN, where she said:
    We were ordained from two bishops, and the one, the first bishop, was Romulo Braschi and the second bishop was a bishop who is in the Roman Catholic church and has true apostolic succession. And perhaps we will be ordained from other bishops.
    We wait, but other bishops from the whole world, perhaps, will ordain us if they think the first ordainment was not current.

    If you want a good laugh, read the whole interview at http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/priesthood/priesthood-cnn.htm (about halfway through).

    After this disaster they obviously learned their lesson and when they started to claim that they had been consecrated bishop, they would not release any information on the ceremony, which allegedly had taken place in secrecy.

    It should also be noted that the ordinations would be totally invalid even if only males were involved, because those people absolutely refuse to refer to God as “Father” and Christ as “Son”, because those are chauvinistic terms. Therefore they have rewritten all ceremonies into some feminazi gobbledygook.

  43. Sam says:

    “Where’s the outrage from other members of the PCUSA and UCC that one of their churches is interfering with another religious group? If the tables were turned and a Catholic parish hosted an event that mocked some denomination’s liturgy there would be near riots. The silence is particularly loud in this case because liberal denominations such as the PCUSA and UCC should, by their own beliefs, be against judging another group’s religious practices.”

    Brian, as a minister in one of those denominations, I am outraged that such a thing occurred, and will be contacting the appropriate authorities to voice my displeasure. It seems to me that this is the height of hypocrisy: proclaiming unity while actively engaging in disunity through doctrinal chaos and excommunication. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.

  44. Owen says:

    “said they rejected the excommunications,” well, this is just to silly for words. What they say now is of no more account than anything they’ve said or done previous to this. For these folks this is the problem with truth, it is objective and not subject to what they think or feel. Just like the farthest left to decry intolerance and disunity while doing exactly that.

    I thinkwe will see more of this nonsense not less. If anything perhaps this and other absurdities are the purgation our Church needs? Just asking. And if the author of the book The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism is correct in his principle statement we ought not be surprised by the idiocy of the adversary.

    It is really very tragic and as I look at this from a distance I am reminded of my own faults such that one realizes these are souls in desperate need of our prayers.