![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
More wymynpriest pretend ordaination B.S.
Annoying, but sadly true. Here is a story from Kentucky’s Lexington Herald-Leader.
My emphases and comments.
Oh… btw… there is a poll at that newpaper site… if you get my drift.
Be patient…
Jessamine woman to be ordained a priest
By Jim Niemi
Herald-Leader Religion Writer
As a young girl growing up in Milwaukee, Janice Sevre-Duszynska often fantasized [That places it in the right category.] about becoming a priest while helping clean the sanctuary of the church her family attended.
“I’d sit in the priest’s chair, go to the pulpit, make believe I was preaching and giving communion,” she said. “I thought, ‘Why couldn’t I be up here?’” [Make believe is still fun!]
Now, 50 years later, she will get her wish, but it could come with a price — excommunication from the Roman Catholic church. [NB the small "c".] On Aug. 9, in defiance of the church’s 2,000-year ban on women in the priesthood, she will be ordained [No she won’t be.] by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an activist group that has protested the ban since 2002. [Okay… what language is being used here? So far, its a "ban". Can’t only things that are actually possible be banned? Right there is a ban on importing Cuban cigars in the USA. But it is still possible to smoke them here.]
Sevre-Duszynska, 58, a Jessamine County resident and grandmother of three, has protested the church’s stance [now its a "stance".] for the last decade.
In 1998, she disrupted the ordination of a Lexington priest [classy!] at the Cathedral of Christ the King by pleading with then-Bishop J. Kendrick Williams to ordain her as well. In 2000, she impersonated a reporter [a liar too!] to attend an annual meeting of Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C., where she grabbed the microphone and again called for the ordination of women. And in 2002, she was arrested as part of a group protesting ordination of deacons by the Catholic Diocese of Atlanta. [and stingy! "If I can’t be ordained, no one can!"]
“To refer to God only in masculine terms empowers men but diminishes women,” said Sevre-Duszynska (pronounced sev-ruh duh-SHIN-ska). “It affects how women are treated, how their children are treated. We come from God also.” [This one is a real dinosaur.]
The church’s position [Now it’s a "position".]
But the church remains steadfast in its tradition, arguing that it follows Christ’s example of selecting men as apostles.
“The church understands that in acting this way, Christ was showing his will,” said T.F. Shaughnessy, spokesman for the Diocese of Lexington. “The church does not have the authority to contravene the authority of Jesus.”
But women do fill key positions in the church, Shaughnessy said. In the Lexington diocese, those positions include director of the Tribunal, the local church court; a diocesan secretary, who reports directly to the bishop; and principals in Catholic schools.
“Basically, women can do everything in the church except perform the sacraments,” [And exercise juridiction, I think.] Shaughnessy said. “Men and women both have dignity, but we each have roles. ... The most revered saint in Catholic canon is the Blessed Mother (Mary), so it’s kind of ludicrous to say that the church disrespects women.”
The Vatican reaffirmed its position against women priests in May when it decreed that anyone who participates in the ordination of a woman is immediately excommunicated, meaning that they have chosen to cut themselves off from receiving the sacraments.
But Sevre-Duszynska, who will be ordained at the Unitarian Universalist Church [Yah…. that’s about right.] of Lexington, does not fear excommunication. She expects it. “I’m really waiting for that parchment from Rome,” she said. [That ineffable gibbet of ignorance and arogance.]
She became eligible for excommunication [Good grief! This is this paper’s religion writer?!?] in 2006 when she was [not] ordained a deacon by Roman Catholic Womenpriests. According to Catholic church doctrine, that office must also be reserved for men. Deacons perform many duties of priests, such as baptisms, marriages and funerals, but they cannot say Mass, consecrate the Eucharist [Yah… ‘cause those are really different] or hear confessions. [Or anoint.]
Sevre-Duszynska believes that Catholicism is too exclusive. “Roman Catholic Womenpriests believe in inclusivity — men, women, married, divorced, disabled,” [aardvarks, potatoes, big scary puppets] she said.
A priest on the streets
While she won’t be allowed to lead a parish, [I wonder if she should be allowed out of the house! Sheesh!] Sevre-Duszynska plans to continue her work as a community activist, a role for which she is known nationwide.
In 2001, she served a 90-day sentence after being charged with trespassing at Fort Benning, Ga., while protesting that the former School of the Americas, now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, was training terrorists. As she completed her sentence, she was fired from her job as a teacher of English as a second language by the Fayette County school district for not fulfilling the terms of her teaching contract. [perhaps she was leaving out masculine pronouns?] Her dismissal was ultimately overturned in a series of court decisions. She retired from the district in 2005.
In 2005, on the 60th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, she was arrested again, for trespassing at a Nevada weapons testing site. [Why violate her rights? Let her go anywhere she wants there!]
“My heroes as priests are on the fringes ... they need to challenge the government and the Vatican,” Sevre-Duszynska said.
Sevre-Duszynska began her preparation for the priesthood 10 years ago with night classes at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is working to complete her doctor of ministry [Oooo … the coveted D.Min!] with Global Ministries University, based in California.
She is also considering offers to minister. “I’ve been asked to [pretend] say Mass in September at the Catholic Workers House in Washington, D.C. I will consider that,” she said. “I also plan to continue my peace and justice work.”
She sees herself as an itinerant priest, not a parish priest. [... okay… I guess I can’t say that…]
“I’m happiest as a priest on the streets,” she said. “I will [not] celebrate the Mass, I will celebrate [simulate] the sacraments. But I intend to be out there on the streets being a voice for the voiceless.”
Sooooo… another posterwymyn for wannabes everywhere!
Okay… say you find yourself at someone’s home for supper and one of these kooks is there too.
What do you say?
What arguments do you use
a) to counteract the kookiness for those who are listening and
b) try to penetrate through to reason and snap the loon out of the delusion?
Take a shot!
How about, instead of just pouring more contempt on this whole thing (I did enough of that for you already), briefly stating your case?
It’s really pathetic. She looks like a disturbed individual. Tom
Comment by TJM — 30 July 2008 @ 4:01 pmNot surprising from the “House of Weakland”.
Comment by William of the Old — 30 July 2008 @ 4:03 pmWhat a fool.
Comment by Paul — 30 July 2008 @ 4:10 pmJust a point about women exercising jurisdiction – there seems to be some uncertainty in the canonical world. The law seems clear – canon 274 of the Latin Code establishes that only clerics hold offices which entail “ecclesiastical governance,” and canon 129 states that the lay faithful (of either sex) can cooperate in the exercise of jurisdiction.
Just what form that cooperation takes is a bit murkier, and whether or not in cooperating in that jurisdictional power the lay person actually exercises jurisdiction is, to many canonists, a debatable point.
In addition, there is the long-standing practice of members of the lay faithful exercising what appears to be jurisdictional power – the Superiors of non-clerical religious orders (such as the Christian Brothers, women’s religious orders) have some form of authority over their subjects that appears to be jurisdiction.
I don’t mean to muddy the waters here, since it is clear and apparent that women cannot be priests, but I wish that diocesan spokespeople and others of that ilk would simply, and clearly state that – without trying to soften the blow.
T.F. Shaughnessy’s, ““Basically, women can do everything in the church except perform the sacraments,” just strikes me the wrong way. First of all, women can “perform” the sacraments – they baptize validly and a bride “performs” marriage to her husband through her act of consent. Secondly, women can’t do “everything in the church,” – they can’t become fathers of families, they can’t enter men’s religious orders, they can’t offer Benediction, they can’t join the Knights of Columbus, and they can’t get the men of the parish to stop drinking beer while they stir the booya the night before the parish festival. Thirdly, it seems to reduce it all to some mere functionality – as if the priesthood were inherently wrapped up in “doing” rather than “being.”
It would be better to simply state that women can’t be priests – the Church teaches this, has always taught this, and will continue to teach this. Church teaching doesn’t always require understanding – it requires assent. It’s not that women can’t do what priests do, it’s that they can’t BE what priests are.
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 30 July 2008 @ 4:14 pm“What arguments do you use
a) to counteract the kookiness for those who are listening and
b) try to penetrate through to reason and snap the loon out of the
delusion?”
I don’t think any arguments can be used. Maybe asking her how her
Comment by mpm — 30 July 2008 @ 4:19 pmprayer and fasting is going?
What is it about these women and the polyester drip-dry horseblankets? And the HAIR.
They always look so “New-Agey” – like they’re permanently stuck in the 60’s timewarp.
Anyone who believes that women are empowered in the Church only by apeing men have serious problems. Women have their own dignity and worth in the sight of God and His Church, but not when they “pretend” to be men. This play-acting demeans the role of women in the Church!
Comment by Mac McLernon — 30 July 2008 @ 4:20 pmThe way to handle this situation is not to focus on the intellect, but the will. Fr. Thomas Dubay states that relativism is a matter of the will. This lady is choosing to live this way for a particular reason. Maybe its due to past or present “hurt” or sin. Whatever the case, appealing to the will is the way to go. Jason Evert, a Catholic Answer Apologist, speaks with Jehova Witnesses first by asking if they are fall away Catholics and if they are (most are) then he apologies for anyway they have been hurt by the Church and invites them to come back. I think this would be an effective way for someone like this woman, apologize for past hurt and invite her back.
Comment by sirjohn — 30 July 2008 @ 4:21 pm@Tim Ferguson,
“T.F. Shaughnessy’s, ““Basically, women can do everything in the church
except perform the sacraments,” just strikes me the wrong way.”
Me too.
I think it gives the impression that to be in the Church, one needs
Comment by mpm — 30 July 2008 @ 4:23 pmsome sort of title or ministry. Maybe one like old T.F. is holding down.
Kind of “pre-Vatican II”.
Can you say “narcissism?” Sure. I knew that you could.
Comment by John Enright — 30 July 2008 @ 4:24 pmWhen I have tried to explain these things to non-Catholics, who generally sympathize with these women, I just try to point out that the whole point of apostolic succession is a hierarchical authority. And, you can’t simultaneously embrace and reject that authority.
I also try to explain about the correct matter needed for a valid sacrament, and say that JPII said the Church just doesn’t have the authority to ordain women. Not that the Church forbids women from being ordained, but that they can’t do it.
It all falls on deaf ears, though. They just see it all in terms of power.
Comment by Kradcliffe — 30 July 2008 @ 4:26 pmThere is an online poll “Should the Roman Catholic Church ordain women?”
right now 39% answered NO. Please follow the link and vote.
http://www.kentucky.com/171/story/475310.html
Derik Castillo
Comment by Derik Castillo — 30 July 2008 @ 4:40 pmWhy is she wearing a chasuble in the picture? She hasn’t even simulated ordination yet…
Comment by J.R. Benedict — 30 July 2008 @ 4:42 pmI get up and leave the table.
I agree, this is their religion writer??
Comment by LCB — 30 July 2008 @ 4:44 pmCatholic, a layman, meets Wymynpryst at the bus stop dressed in garments resembling vestments.
Catholic: Fr., or Sr., or Mother or !, I have a question for you, what did you think of Summorum Pontificum?
Wymynpryst: I haven’t seen it. When did it come out?
C: 7/7/07
W: I can’t believe I missed it. Who directed it?
C: Pope Benedict
W: Ha ha, seriously. Was it nominated for any awards?
C: You might say that.
W: I don’t remember seeing it advertised.
C: It was promulgated on the internet and in many bookstores.
Wt: OH! It is a book!
C: Sort of, it is really a Motu Proprio.
W: Is that like the new Kindle?
C: Not really. It is more like a document the Pope issued to de-restrict the Traditional Latin Mass so any priest can celebrate it without the permission of the Bishop. Does your diocese support the priests’ rights? Or, is it like some dioeceses that continue to intimidate those priests who want to celebrate the TLM?
W: My Diocese does not intimidate any person of race, creed, gender, sexual identity. We are open to all.
C: What Diocese do you belong to?
W: My Diocese.
C: Is?
W: My Diocese.
C: Is?
W: My Diocese.
C: Is?
W: My Diocese.
C: Argh! And your Bishop is?
W: A great person.
C: What is the territory of your Diocese?
W: We have no boundaries.
C: Do you have a cathedral?
W: Yes, one without walls
C: What do you think of the Pope?
W: I don’t.
Catholic walks away frustrated at his attempt to engage in rational conversation. He decides to pray for the woman. She in turn goes to celebrate herself in a form of worship worded like the Mass. She does not ask what the prayers really say.
Comment by Bill Haley — 30 July 2008 @ 4:45 pmI usually try to make an argument about human nature, but typically the ears that would need to hear such an argument are indoctrinated to the point of deafness. There is a sort of quiet existentialism behind all this sort of nonsense (similarly behind so-called “gay rights”). You can change how you act, but you cannot change how God made you; and how God made you defines the sphere of action proper to you.
On another note, I think that if I were somewhere for dinner, my response, in terms of being contemptuous or attemping to be patient and explaining, would depend a great deal on what quality of liquor the host was serving and the quantity I had imbibed.
Comment by Brian Kemple — 30 July 2008 @ 4:46 pmIt is all about this woman and her ego. If she were truly following God’s direction, she would be open to doing what is needed in her parish church, not demonstrating at various venues and parading around in a chausible.
Comment by Locutus — 30 July 2008 @ 4:46 pmI’m also unsure that any sort of logical argument will work. I had a conversation with an Anglican priest once who had no issues with the ordination of females…the conversation went something like this;
Me: Christ selected only women, and the Church sees that selection as authoritative.
AP: But Christ selected men because of social conventions of the time; since then women have been liberated.
Me: True enough about a more enlightened view of women’s place in society and their inherent dignity, but since when was Christ ever constrained by social construct? He hung out with the dregs of society, ate with them, “worked” on the Sabbath, et cetera…do you really believe God Himself would allow Himself to be bound by mere human social construct?
AP: Well…I still don’t see a reason women can’t be priests. They function admirably when they’re installed.
Me: Whether or not they “can” do it is a different question…we must answer the “should” question first. Try this one on for size…you believe in Sacraments, right?
AP: Yes.
Me: The definition of a Sacrament is an “outward sign, instituted by Christ, with gives grace.” “Instituted by Christ” is the important phrase here…we are not permitted to change the form of a Sacrament, and a male minister is part of the form of the Sacrament. We can no more ordain a woman to the priesthood that you could consecrate orange juice and cinnamon rolls as the Eucharist.
AP: If OJ and rolls were all I had, I would consecrate them…
Me: ????
AP: Really, how can you Catholics say this?
Me: Because we have a Magesterium.
AP: Oh…but we have Apostolic Succession…
Me: Actually, you don’t, and that’s part of the problem…
AP: I guess I just don’t see it that way…
End of conversation…I think anyone bent on observing their own conscience over and above the constant teaching of the Church guided by the Spirit will end up in the same place…in the end, you have to either take Jesus Christ at His word when He said He would send the Spirit to guide the Church, or not…
Comment by Mickey — 30 July 2008 @ 4:47 pmWhat arguments do you use
a) to counteract the kookiness for those who are listening and
b) try to penetrate through to reason and snap the loon out of the delusion?
Speaking from first hand experience, I can honestly say that unfortunately, on this subject, I do not think that there really is anything much you can say that is going to “counteract the kookiness” or “penetrate through to reason.” All you can do is politely (using every ounce of self-restraint and Christian charity possible) disagree and, if you really don’t want a knockdown dragout “clash of the Titans” on your hands, kindly propose to change the subject. Otherwise, be prepared for a long night, hard feelings, little results, and a severe case of indigestion after your dinner party.
I have found that those who oppose Church teaching and practice, by and large, are not interested in dialogue. In their fight for “inclusion,” they end up being more dictatorial, uncharitable, and exclusive as their perceived “patriarchal oppressors” in the hierarchy. Maybe I’m wrong, but that has been my experience.
Comment by TNCath — 30 July 2008 @ 4:47 pmI hope someone is keeping an eye on the list of celebrants for the Catholic Worker House in D.C.!
Comment by Pater, OSB — 30 July 2008 @ 4:56 pmThere is nothing in her “theology” that is remotely Catholic. Hers is a religion of self-affirmation, which is far from atonement and communion with the One True God. Since God is in her own image, she doesn’t need [real] sacraments, Jesus Christ, a communion of saints, authority, a hierarchy, a flock, a creed, particular doctrines, discernment or a “call” [outside the voice in her head]. She’s a lone ranger playing dress up.
I find that this story provides an important reminder that the rubrics we cherish have an aura of their own, and we must always remember to “nail them down” for the children. While the media loves the “Church as foil” because of what they see as handy “props,” we know them to be sacraments and sacramentals—finite material laden with infinite power and supernatural meaning. To her, sadly, they are schtick, which she will take to the streets like a skateboard or boom box—providing her simply with a different persona…
Comment by gsk — 30 July 2008 @ 5:03 pmDinner at Rev. Ms. Dissenter’s home:
Her: (Gushingly) I was just ordained a Catholic priest!
Comment by Fr. James — 30 July 2008 @ 5:05 pmMe: Oh really? I was recently elected Pope.
Her: (Annoyed) I am serious. That hurts my feelings.
Me: Ah, feelings, the new infallible magisterium. Well it hurts my feelings when you claim to be something you are not. It also hurts my feelings when you incur an excommunication. You have hurt over one billion Catholics’ feelings. But you know what really hurts?
Her: No?
Me: The fires of hell. That’s the place where those who disobey Jesus go. That’s what you have done by attempting to be ordained. You have placed yourself above the Lord himself. In do doing you have hurt yourself. So just stop. Come back down to earth and accept reality, you are not and never will be ordained as a priest. It can’t happen and that will never never change.
Her: I don’t believe in hell.
Me: You will.
Her: Get out!
I just about plotzed when I saw your ‘coveted D. Min.’ When I was in seminary that was the exact phrase we used for the degree gained by those of a certain age sent by their Orders to divert their anger from their Superiors to the Hierarchy of the Church.
Comment by Joe — 30 July 2008 @ 5:14 pmSirjohn – I think you are completely right. Father Dubay’s “Faith and Certitude” is a wonderful book to read in trying to understand error and combat it. Yes, a problem of WILL, not intellect.
Comment by avecrux — 30 July 2008 @ 5:15 pmFor some who want a compelling read on the necessity of the male Priesthood, I would suggest Fr. Manfred Hauke’s “Women in the Priesthood: A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption”. Academic in tone, but an amazing read. Both are available from Ignatius Press.
I think it’s very funny that they always have bizarre homemade vestments, bad haircuts, and poorly done make-up. I want to see “Total Makeover: Womanpriest Edition”.
Oh and keep voting at that KY paper link. It’s now up to 43% against women’s ordination.
Comment by Patrick — 30 July 2008 @ 5:16 pmIf I was at the dinner table with a ‘wymynpriest’? I would try to explain the doctrine [not position] of the Church on the matter in the spirit of charity, truth and love, not in contempt. That is something all Catholics dedicate their lives to. I pity these misguided women. Mocking them only serves the purpose of feeding our society of hatred.
Comment by Lucia — 30 July 2008 @ 5:17 pmMy argument (politely expressed): – Jesus didn’t create female apostles (and he could have) and so…. – The Church doesn’t believe it can override what Jesus did and so…. – The Catholic Church does not and will not ordain women and so…. – Ordained women are not Catholic. Q.E.D.
You can be an ordained minister/rabi/priest/witch/vampyre/whatever BUT not Catholic!
Comment by Gil Wright — 30 July 2008 @ 5:23 pmIt’s not about gender, it’s about self-actualization. Everyone of these pathetic individuals put THEIR needs ahead of God’s. Giving one’s life to God requires humble submission to His will. Period. These people speak only of THEIR desires and dreams or of their misinformed perceptions of the needs of society. Were they TRULY submissive and humble, when told that there were other roles in His Church for women, their response would be, “His will be done.”
Were they to magically wake-up tomorrow as men, they would still not make it. Even IF they submitted to the idea of 8-years of education, they would not make it past the bishop. He is not going to ordain someone who does not “mean it” when lying prostrate in front of the altar of God.
So ladies, if you want to serve God he has prescribed many ways to do so though the Church He established through His son. If you want to serve yourself first, you may do so in any one of about 25,000 other religious communities. And if you don’t understand the difference you might want to consider a completely different vocation direction because that’s going to be exactly the kind of thing a spiritual leader is asked about.
Comment by Famulus — 30 July 2008 @ 5:27 pmYou can find a she-priest’s blog here, http://bridgetmarys.blogspot.com/
Bridget Mary Meehan is the spokeswoman, spokesperson for the RCWP.
Comment by Cliff — 30 July 2008 @ 5:28 pmSorry, I neglected the assignment. There is only one question:
“Do you believe that God spoke?”
The problem with modernists is that they don’t believe the initial premise that God revealed Himself. Usually they believe that men made it up (to control others—esp. women), so it can simply be remade. Or they believe that men got it confused, and it needs to be realigned (by their lights). If her answer is that we cannot really know what God wants, or that He didn’t reveal Himself definitively, then all the arguments (and books) in the world are useless. Arguing revelation and interpretation with a modernist is like nailing jello to the wall.
Comment by gsk — 30 July 2008 @ 5:28 pmMocking them is the only release there is in trying to deal with this nonsense.
Do you really think that these womyn haven’t been given the truth in the heaviest of doses already? Please! Save your naive suggestions for where it hasn’t already been done ad nauseum. These females need an exorcism. So pray for them, yes. But don’t be accusing frustrated Catholics of supporting hatred just because they release a tiny bit of stress over a monumental evil being committed against the Church they so love. If you want to have compassion, show it to the Mystical Body of Christ, because it is WE who are the victims of these she-devils.
Comment by AndyPandy — 30 July 2008 @ 5:33 pmAt first, I was mostly put off by the giant puppets. Then, I began to see them as a public safety measure. Any time you see one or more giant puppets in a public venue, turn and walk the other way.
Comment by MargaretC — 30 July 2008 @ 5:39 pmI did not say anyone supported hatred here or anywhere. And compassion is not naive.
Comment by Lucia — 30 July 2008 @ 5:41 pmHow do you deal with pride in general? It’s a tough hide to crack. Logic seldom works, because they’re living a lie.
I wonder if using the tack that not everyone who wishes to become a priest (even if male) is chosen to be one. It’s done with a conscious decision of the Church, who validates the “call” and the suitability of the person at that moment for seminary through ordination. Emotional stability (!), sufficient preparation, state of one’s soul, all come into play. Even age and health.
I wonder if one can penetrate that hide (or crack that skull) by instilling a bit of humility. I don’t know how – logic doesn’t seem to work, I wonder when the last time she’s done an examination of conscience? I wonder what would happen if we suggested that. Perhaps we could suffer reading a book of her choice if she would read “Abandonment to Divine Providence”.
Comment by Tzard — 30 July 2008 @ 5:48 pmWhat arguments do you use
a) to counteract the kookiness for those who are listening and
b) try to penetrate through to reason and snap the loon out of the delusion?
-Explain the importance of the imitation of Jesus when He
obeyed His Father with respect to who is elegible for priesthood.
-Explain Numbers 16 and why Korah, Dathan and Abiram were wrong.
-Explain that the ways of God are way beyond the ways of humans,
therefore, nothing to do with “empowering males, diminishing women”.
She is working to complete her doctor of ministry [Oooo … the coveted D.Min!]
Comment by Derik Castillo — 30 July 2008 @ 5:50 pmBack in graduate school we had a saying, loosely translated to
english as (excuse my language): “Having a doctorate doesn’t
make you any less of a dumbass” for the spanish speaker:
“Lo doctor no quita lo pendejo”.
Wymynpryest at the bus stop in “clerics”
Me: Halloween
Her: No I am a wynmynpriest
Me: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (holding my stomach)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (failing on the ground)HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Her: I’m serious
Me: (from the ground still) Oh I know
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Laughter continues until bus arrives, wymynpryest boards, and bus departs. I have missed my bus but due to all the laughter will not have to do crunches for a week.
Comment by Paul — 30 July 2008 @ 5:52 pmIt’s hard to sway someone who has no qualms about picking up her toys and going home and playing by herself. Explaining the rulse is useless to someone who rejects all rule but her own. And for a man to support male-only priesthood—heavens, that just proves the injustice of the practice.
So, perhaps it might help to give them the book, The Catholic Mystique. I know one of the editors, both of whom were ordained Lutheran ministers before coming to their senses again. I think women who used to think like womenpriests might be the best witness to the error. And in social situations, though I’m the theologian, I let my wife and daughters argue this issue. I like watching fireworks more than setting them off.
By the way, I’m glad Fr. Z you picked up on the word “ban.” It’s been bugging me, not only about this issue but also about same-sex “marriage” and contraception. Bans can be lifted. Bans are prudential prohibitions of things that could, theoretically, be permitted.
Comment by Doc Angelicus — 30 July 2008 @ 5:56 pmYou said people here mocked them. Then you said: “Mocking them only serves the purpose of feeding our society of hatred.” What part of your own post do you not understand?
Ill-placed compassion is indeed naive.
Comment by AndyPandy — 30 July 2008 @ 5:59 pmI have spoken with several of these ladies over the years, over dinner and during prandials post prayer experience. Arguing theology doesn’t get anywhere. They’ve heard it all before, and written articles and books refuting it. And they firmly believe, and are probably correct, that the majority of Catholics in the pews agree with them.
I have found the best discussion comes by discussing their METHODS, and proposing an alternate scenario for their activism: How about “one hill at a time?”
“Ordain” a few women who are beyond reproach. Women who:
(1) ... have credentials from solidly Catholic institutions. (What the heck is “Global Ministries University” in California?)
(2) ... take promises of celibacy. (Notice that most of these ladies are married or in non-sacramental partnerships.
(3) ... promise obedience to a local ordinary. (Reference the free-lance peregrinations of these ladies.)
(4) ... reject the 60’s ponchoes and the rest of the baggage.
Imagine, ladies, that you made this protest and actually appeared to be serious about it. Imagine what the press would say. Imagine what the Catholics in the pews would so.
Today, you are content conducting prayer experiences in the back room of the community center, with your husband, a few hippie friends, and the local Unitarian organist in the assembly.
You could be so much more.
You could actually claim some moral authority.
Maybe someday they would give you the power you crave.
But you blew it by being ordained on a boat.
Comment by Virgil — 30 July 2008 @ 6:04 pmJust curious… Are they still called Father? “Mother” is already taken. I suppose one could use “Bless me poor disturbed woman with issues, for I have sinned. Of course, next to what you’re doing, I feel pretty good now about my place in line. Thanks!”
Comment by KK — 30 July 2008 @ 6:07 pmIf persuasion is the goal, as opposed to a declaration of church teaching, I don’t think it’s best to attack the issue head-on. When debating wymynpriests, protestants, or atheists I think it is critical to attack the underlying assumptions. At the heart of this issue, as with many others, is the rejection of the authority of the church. They must be continually reminded of what it means to be a Catholic. And what history has taught us about the people/communities who have rejected this authority? Without ever mentioning the ordination of women it is possible (although initially unlikely) to plant that seed of doubt, or at least weaken the zeal.
Comment by Giovanni — 30 July 2008 @ 6:17 pmVoting is up to 48% against.
Comment by joy — 30 July 2008 @ 6:25 pmI vote for not letting her out of HER house. Something tells me she just doesn’t get the idea behind “enclosure”...
Father, thanks for the venting.(You are so much better at it than I am.)
Thanks also for the manly Don Camillo Stories. We like manly Priests and feminine Nuns in habits. We can’t stand the giant puppets. They are spooky like psycho-clowns… as are the wymnp. Whatever they are – they look possessed.
Comment by Coletta — 30 July 2008 @ 6:30 pmHi,Joy!
Comment by Coletta — 30 July 2008 @ 6:33 pmA poll was conducted a few months ago in a left-leaning Catholic blog. Even they didn’t want it. I think it was just 4% would have a woman for a priest. And that is about right. The blog was open to any and all. It ran for quite a while. I have the actual stats somewhere. I will try to find them and post them here. Look, folks…even the Anglicans don’t want them. What in tarnation would make anyone think that we would? Nothing would. So spare us the b.s. It is just a lie to attempt to sway public opinion. Thank God, our Church does not sway according to public opinion.
Comment by CJ — 30 July 2008 @ 6:39 pmAndyPandy, please let me explain my comment, “Mocking them only serves the purpose of feeding our society of hatred.” I know it was poorly worded, I apologize.
I did not specifically enumerate who mocks these “wymynpriests”, here or otherwise. All I said was that the act of mocking them serves the purpose of feeding our society of hatred. What I mean by that is if we give people something to hate, they’ll hate us. We as Catholics do not wish to be hated in the sense that we want to always be adding more to our numbers. Mocking those who oppose our beliefs does not solve anything. It simply gives them more reason to dissent.
Taking a position against these women is fine. It’s justified completely. The manner in which we do it is what I take issue with. I believe that making our public opinion clear, explaining it one hundred percent, not backing down from our points, and always pushing it into the public is the way to do it. Condemning the practices of these ‘wymynpriests’ is part of that. Mocking and ridiculing them is not.
I have said all I need to say. I apologize for any confusion.
Comment by Lucia — 30 July 2008 @ 6:52 pmThis is what my MIL said when we were watching the news about the Anglican Church deciding to ordain women bishops: “Hooray! The Church has fallen!” She meant it as a positive thing. But, it sounded plainly to me that she meant “Hooray, the Church is collapsing.” She is a non-believer, and says “Oh, who wrote the Bible, anyway? A bunch of MEN!” She is hostile to Christianity.
That is what I think of when I ponder why that female rabbi and that UCC minister and this UUC church have encouraged these “ordinations.” They know that it hurts the Church and that’s what they want to see.
Comment by Kradcliffe — 30 July 2008 @ 6:59 pmI cannot add much to what has already been said here. I can only direct you to the site below for a much needed laugh about all of this.
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/07/todays-priestess.html
Comment by Marilyn — 30 July 2008 @ 7:15 pmI guess I would ask, and out of genuine curiosity, why in the name of all that is unholy they would ever want to be a Catholic priest, of all things?
You don’t seem to think much of anything the pope has to say. You don’t give two red cents for the local bishop. You seem to react to the Church’s teachings with little but disgust and disdain. Is there anything about the Catholic Church you actually approve of?
So if you don’t care for Catholicism, why not be an Anglican priest? They allow it! Oh, you mean you want to change the Church, that’s it? So you profess avidly to be the very thing you seek to abolish. How does this not strike you as insanity?
Comment by Clayton — 30 July 2008 @ 7:23 pmWell, all these women are doing is serving up scandal left and right, and what good does it do?
Women get the greatest job in the world: carrying babies and bringing them into the world. There are times that I envy the fact that my wife is able to do that and I cannot. This in no way means that I should have a uterine implantation done to experience the carrying and bearing of a child. The recent “pregnant man” thing comes to mind.
As my wife put it, and I tend to agree with it, the priesthood is the equivalent of being able to bear children for men. Think about it. Women deal with the physical, men the spiritual. Blur the lines and you have chaos.
Makes a lot of sense to me!
Comment by Jake — 30 July 2008 @ 7:28 pmNothing works at the moment for conversion. These heretics are stuck in their pride and sin. All we can do is plant seeds of truth in a charitable way (poking fun does not work!) and pray for their conversion later. My approach is to follow the path of fatherhood. Only men can be fathers, and women are mothers, no matter what utilities they are each capable of. As it is in the physical world, so it is in the spiritual world.
Comment by Fr. Marie-Paul — 30 July 2008 @ 7:42 pmWhat would I say??
That requires some thought.
First, are you called to be a community/political activist or a woman of God? (yes there is a difference)
Next, Why do you insist in saying you are “ordained as a Catholic Priest” when you know you are excommunicated? I thought those were mutualy exclusive.
Further, Exactly what kind of role model are you for our children? One who follows what the Church teaches…just as long as it doesn’t interfere with your desires? (geeeeeeeezzz!)
Lastly, I will say that the feminist movement ultimately did NOTHING for my generation (I’m 33) except to take the pride and appreciation out of being solely a wife and mother…..I see these wymyn-twits as doing the same in Catholicism, they are simply diminishing the value of the role that women DO play within the Church. (after all, who HASN’T heard of Mother Teresa?)
Comment by Mightymom — 30 July 2008 @ 7:56 pmI don’t do confrontation well at all. A conversation with one of these twits would at best be as follows;
Her: How do you do?I’m a Catholic priest.
Me: (patting her hand) But of course you are, of course you are.
Comment by Subvet — 30 July 2008 @ 7:58 pmI do not permit comments from “anonymous” on the blog. I delete them.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 30 July 2008 @ 8:03 pm“I’ve been asked to [pretend] say Mass in September at the Catholic Workers House in Washington, D.C. I will consider that,” she said.
Alert Archbishop Wuerl
Dorothy Day would NEVER have even allow this suggestion.
Comment by Viator Catholicus — 30 July 2008 @ 8:24 pmIf I were this woman I’d watch out. Day might get one of her miracles for her cause of canonization to progress by getting the Lord to smite Sevre-Duszynska with leprosy or have the earth swallow her and her groupees up like the sons of Korah (q.v. Num 16).
No’s are at 55%!
Comment by joy — 30 July 2008 @ 8:30 pmLucia said “I did not specifically enumerate who mocks these “wymynpriests”, here or otherwise. All I said was that the act of mocking them serves the purpose of feeding our society of hatred. What I mean by that is if we give people something to hate, they’ll hate us. We as Catholics do not wish to be hated in the sense that we want to always be adding more to our numbers. Mocking those who oppose our beliefs does not solve anything. It simply gives them more reason to dissent.”
I’m sorry, there are certain position some people hold that you cannot discuss without mockery because they are so far gone. Can you hold a logical discussion with someone about why he sees the sun rise in the west and set in the east or why the world is flat or why Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong didn’t walk on the moon 39 years ago, instead they were really on a soundstage somewhere?
Of course not. And would it be Christian to let them think that their beliefs were close to being reality? No.
I pray for these wymynprysts (did I spell that right?) but there is no way a person can rationally agree with them or the other examples I mentioned.
Comment by John — 30 July 2008 @ 8:39 pmWoman in question: “How do you do? I’m a Catholic priest”.
Me: “How do you do? I’m so pleased to meet you. I’m Napoleon Bonaparte. Would you like a drink?”
Comment by booklover — 30 July 2008 @ 8:45 pmI’d be curious to see a table—womynpriests on the left column, Catholic dogmas on the top row, and see where else they disagree with Catholic “positions”. I’d wager the following would be pretty common areas where they’d nearly all disagree with Catholic teaching:
Gay “marriage”
Contraception
Euthanasia
Abortion
Chastity
Oneness and Apostolicity of Church
Fatherhood of God
Reverence and honor to Mary (ironic, but true)
In other words, unrecognizable as Catholic.
Comment by JohnE — 30 July 2008 @ 8:50 pmAbout those puppets… I recognize Richard Nixon on the left and Luciano Pavarotti on the right, but who’s in the middle?
Comment by Emilio III — 30 July 2008 @ 8:55 pmI could talk about valid matter, apostolic tradition, scripture, the nature of the sacrificing priesthood etc. etc. etc., but why say what has been said 1000 times. Father asks us to briefly state our case.
Okay.
What sort of man would allow a woman to offer herself as priest and victim for the good of his salvation?
If I am on a sinking ship, and my wife and children are with me, I would put them on the life boat first. If there weren’t enough seats (okay.. okay.. there are more than enough seats these days… but bear with me) I hope to God I would have the courage to put OTHER women and children on the lifeboat FIRST.
My vocation, as a man, is to protect and die for women and children if necessary.
Our priests’ vocation is protect us spiritually, and, in a sense, to die to world for us, for the good of our salvation.
If that boat went down, and I saved myself at the cost of women and children, I would never be able to leave the house again for shame.
How is it we should feel any different if we allow women to be ordained priests?
Comment by cathguy — 30 July 2008 @ 9:01 pmWDJD?
What Did Jesus Do?
He Chose Men, He breathed the holy spirit on these men. He gave to them the Keys of heaven.
What did Jesus do?
Comment by Tom Seeker — 30 July 2008 @ 9:05 pmPoll is at 57% No now.
Comment by Elaine T — 30 July 2008 @ 9:43 pmI think that I would distinguish between “rights” and the grace of vocation. Since most of these women are coming from a pretty secular mindset, there is no point in arguing with them about “rights” and “justice.” This would not be persuasive. I find that it is more effective to speak in terms of the vocation to the priesthood as a free gift of God—in other words, you can’t just take it because you want it. It must be given. And since God has chosen to make his will known to us as a Church (and not just as individuals), with a magisterium, who has already spoken on this matter, then women’s ordination is a moot point. I would also emphasize the value of obedience to the Church even when one cannot yet give intellectual assent to her teaching.
Comment by mysticalrose — 30 July 2008 @ 9:55 pmFor being so inclusive, how come the women-priests have no men?
Comment by joe — 30 July 2008 @ 9:56 pmDoes the Church’s teaching include forbiding the ordination of woman deacons?
Comment by joe — 30 July 2008 @ 10:19 pmI hope so!
Don’t confront such a women without “prayer and fasting.”
Comment by Steve — 30 July 2008 @ 10:36 pmHave any of these wymyn preezts performed a major exorcism?
Comment by Warren — 30 July 2008 @ 10:40 pmIndeed, what is the deal with radicals and their puppets?
It’s getting to be that you can’t watch a faux-ordination by Womenpriests (or is that wymynpriests?) or a Call to Action Mass without seeing these things.
Comment by Darel — 30 July 2008 @ 10:46 pmTake a shot!
She: “I’m a Catholic priest.”
I: “Pardon me, but you can no more be a Catholic priest than I could be a Catholic nun of the Little Sisters of the Poor.”
Unfortunately, she would probably think it a good idea for men to join the ranks of Catholic women religious.
Comment by Guy Power — 31 July 2008 @ 12:16 am—Guy
She: Hi, I’m Pat, a Roman Catholic Priest…
Comment by Markor — 31 July 2008 @ 12:32 amMe: That’s impossible.
She: But I’ve been ordained.
Me: That’s impossible. And by the way, you’re excommunicated.
She: But…
Me: Not Buts
She: But…
Me: No, No.
She: But…
Me: Listen lady, with all due respect… Calling yourself a Catholic, let alone a Priest is blasphemous and an outright lie.
She: It’s not a lie!
Me: Well then, you must be delusional. Please seek some help.
She: Walks away with her feelings hurt.
Me: I’ll pray for you, Pat!
Has anyone ever heard of a wymynpriest “performing” a Traditional Latin Mass?
Comment by werdegast — 31 July 2008 @ 1:17 amWhen I meet a supporer of this nonsense, I make excited inquiries about the details of the Personal Revelation that gave them a greater insight than the Apostles concerning God, Church and Priesthood.
The response is always about “Feelings” and “Fairness”.
My follow up question: How will your actions keep souls from Hell?
Hell as a destination is not a concept accepted by any of the supporters of a female priesthood that I have spoken with a read of.
For what it is worth, I also ask the second question of those who “innovate” the Mass and other religious services.
Comment by Glen Weaver — 31 July 2008 @ 1:54 am“Has anyone ever heard of a wymynpriest “performing” a Traditional Latin Mass?”
Of course not. Ad Orientem violates the liberals’ Prime Directive: “It’s all about me!”.
Comment by TJ — 31 July 2008 @ 2:06 amTeresa of Avila accepted the Church’s teaching, as did Catherine of Siena, Therese of Lisieux, and the thousands upon thousands of holy women who understood the beauty and strength of the role we women are invited to play within the faith (and I include my own dear late mother and the wonderful nuns who educated me). Are you setting yourself above those great and faithful women in terms of wisdom, intellect, holiness, inspiration? I do hope not.
Jesus chose men to lead his Church just as he chose a woman as his mother and women to stand at the foot of his cross.
We are equal, but different – isn’t that what feminism alleges to support anyway?
Comment by Lacrimarum Valle — 31 July 2008 @ 2:43 am“Has anyone ever heard of a wymynpriest “performing” a Traditional Latin Mass?”
Of course not. Ad Orientem violates the liberals’ Prime Directive: “It’s all about me!”.
For that matter, has anyone ever heard of a wymynpriest “performing” a NO Mass?
Not just because NO was supposed to be celebrated “ad orientem”. What I have seen in videos and clips of these mockeries of Mass are totally rewritten and changed prayers and gestures. I don’t think the norm for these kooks is to follow the OF Missal at all. It’s too Catholic and “sexist” for them. What they do are hilarious parodies of the NO.
Comment by Fabrizio — 31 July 2008 @ 4:07 amOh goodness… I’m already nauseous as it is, another story about women wanting to be ordained priests makes me very sad and does nothing for my upset stomach.
Comment by Maria S. — 31 July 2008 @ 5:12 amThe poor lady is deluded.
Comment by Jane — 31 July 2008 @ 5:18 amAnd if you face away from everybody, like, how do you know for sure that they’re LOOKING at you? And even if they are, they’re SOOOO looking at your BUTT
! At least, the dirty old men are. Like, come on, you guys!
Comment by Ed the Roman — 31 July 2008 @ 6:50 am“What arguments do you use
a) to counteract the kookiness for those who are listening and
b) try to penetrate through to reason and snap the loon out of the delusion?”
First-time poster who can’t resist. Like many others, ultimately I think logical argumentation here is doomed to fail because as others have said, this is in their will. But, I have often thought that the argument, for them to listen to it, has to be won on their ground – namely, an entirely secular, power-based point of view. So one argument could go like this:
“Some day, most people believe, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II will be ‘Saint Pope John Paul’ and probably not just that, but ‘The Great’. In other words, the Catholic Church believes this to be one of its best Popes. He spoke very definitively about this subject of women’s ordination. Were the Church ever to do a 180 on this topic it would be undermining its entire argument for her own authority, i.e., if our “best” can be that wrong on a subject of this much importance then any future Popes might as well pack up and go home. No self-respecting Pope is ever going to say that ‘St Pope John Paul the Great’ was wrong about anything of substance – even if he wanted to.”
That’s not the best argument that can be made on the subject, but it does come from their perspective, which is entirely power-based and political. It could be followed up with something like this, “If the Holy Spirit were truly inspiring women to become priests, wouldn’t He would also be inspiring the Magisterium of the Church to change its mind on this topic, not entrench the teaching even further? Why is all of the “inspiring” so one-sided? The Holy Spirit does not inspire people to excommunicate themselves, or to leave the Church.”
Regina
Comment by Regina — 31 July 2008 @ 7:22 amWhy not just say that—however much or however many people would like to ordain women as priests—the Church simply does not have the power to do so.
So, for instance, even if a valid bishop were to carry out the ordination ceremony, saying all the prescribed words and laying his hands on a woman’s head in the right way, it simply would not “take”. She still would not thereby be configured to Christ so as to be able to confect the Eucharist and forgive sins.
So even if she and every human being on earth thought she was a priest, she still would not be.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 31 July 2008 @ 7:32 amThis all reminds me of the time Christopher West visited the Cleveland seminary. He gave an excellent talk on the dimension of Theology of the Body that deals with Celibacy, Virginity, Chastity, etc. We are still scratching our heads at how someone like Christopher West snuck into our seminary. There were twice as many people there (a lot of cleveland nuns) than for a typical lecture. (Remember Cleveland is a stronghold for FutureChurch)
Anyway, he opened up the floor for questions. One of the first questions was about wymynprysts (even though the lecture topic wasn’t on women’s ordination, but theological/spiritual understanding of Celibacy and Chastity) and West gave a very nice explanation of the Church’s teaching. They pushed the issue, so West made the argument about valid form of the sacrament of Orders: The Church cannot ordain women anymore than a priest can consecrate graham crackers and chocolate milk. At that, the wymyn in the audience let out a simultaneous groan, as if the bowels of hell suddenly opened up. I will never forget that sound, like ogres in pain…you seriously felt the anger coming from these wymyn.
Last year, Sr. Sara Butler (The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church) gave our annual theological Lecture. It went very well, though it wasn’t surprising when the questions, asked by lefties, were asked as if the people hadn’t heard a word Sr. Butler said.
Please pray for our Bishop, he’s got a tough job on his hands.
Comment by clevesem — 31 July 2008 @ 7:49 amwerdegast: Has anyone ever heard of a wymynpriest “performing” a Traditional Latin Mass?
I believe that is what Sinead O’Conner did, though my memory is unclear about the details.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 31 July 2008 @ 8:03 amHere is where I am on this subject of women’s ordination.
First of all, I believe the Spirit plants the seed wherever the Spirit wishes. Sometimes, unfortunately, the recipient is a woman. I don’t doubt for a minute that there are faithful Catholic women who have a strong call to priesthood. Just look at those saints named above by other posters. The Little Flower is an example.
Women, however, have had to deal every day with the impossibility of heeding that call and the derision that any mention of it sends their way. Many simply never speak of their call to others any longer. Perhaps, it is their cross to bear in life. It definitely is not a call to be a nun, which is an entirely different calling.
Perhaps, at some time in the distant future a way will be made by the Spirit for their calling to be fulfilled within the Catholic Church. Only God knows… and I am willing to Let God…
I do not condone the Womenpriest movement, although I am sure there are many sincere women part of it. It also appears to harbor some strange, very hurt women who are certainly in need of our prayers and not our laughter.
Comment by m.a. — 31 July 2008 @ 8:15 amATTENTION ALL FAITHFUL ROMAN CATHOLICS:
I am sorry that we have to endure this. Please pray for her soul.
That is all….
Have a nice day.
Comment by Andy Milam — 31 July 2008 @ 9:25 amm.a. –
“I don’t doubt for a minute that there are faithful Catholic women who have a strong call to priesthood.”
There may be women who have a strong “desire” or “feeling” that they are called by God to be priests. But they are not called by God to be priests. Too many people these days mistake their feelings for God’s will. God does not call people to sin. Christ does however call people to follow him, and live in his commandments. We used to call a desire to “break a commandment” a temptation. God is not the source of temptation.
Feelings are not bad, however. But to what is God actually “calling” women who feel “called” to the priesthood. More than likely he is calling them to obedience and submission to his commandments. He is calling them to be Saints through the Church, instead, they leave the Church.
Comment by clevesem — 31 July 2008 @ 9:27 amA priest was in the hospital anointing a sick man. When he came out of the room, he was greeted by a habitless, lefty, priest-wannabe nun with a butch hair cut who declared “If I had a p^*&$ I could have done that.” The priest responded “Good God woman, I used my thumb!”
Comment by anonymous — 31 July 2008 @ 9:54 am“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4
That’s a pretty solid piece of evidence – all other arguments are icing on the cake. Disagreeing with the ex cathedra declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is heresy pure and simple.
Comment by Mark — 31 July 2008 @ 10:00 amIf one looks at the Apostolic letter, ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ 1994, it clearly states the ‘Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.’ Moreover, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a reply ‘ad dubium’ in 1995, stated the teaching was ‘set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium’, and the definitive statement by John Paul II belonged ‘to the deposit of faith’.
These statements reaffirmed a doctrine preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, which ‘pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself’. This was not an opinion from the Pope but an exercise in his supreme authority as the Vicar of Christ confirming the brethren, and in line with the second Vatican Council’s constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25.
The Church cannot ordain women because this would be contrary to the example of Christ, the practice of the early Apostolic community, and the constant universal teaching of Tradition. This is the definitive and binding judgement of the Church’s Magisterium. This is the faith of the Church. It helps to be clear at the outset
Finally, just in case you are still in any doubt, as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger made it clear in 1995:
‘In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein.
To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church.
Comment by Joseph Dylong — 31 July 2008 @ 10:21 amHow is the poll doing?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 31 July 2008 @ 10:45 amFr Z- the “no’s” have it at 63%
Comment by Jackie — 31 July 2008 @ 10:52 amJackie
Mysticalrose has it right. I was once on Anglican priest-track until I realized:
1. It wasn’t all about me.
2. What was I doing with all these sexually active male “priests?”
3. I better join a real Church.
About 3: so I did. Happily ever after…
Comment by Ohio Annie — 31 July 2008 @ 11:04 amI have to deal with quite a bit of this when people (non-Catholics) discover that I am a Catholic female studying theology. They are often a bit puzzled why someone who can’t be ordained would study theology, and then helpfully offer “why don’t you join X church, then you could preach and be a pastor or whatever?” I am still figuring out the best answer. Right now, I usually explain that it would be pretty sad if the only way to preach the Gospel were from the pulpit. The Gospel needs to be in the pew and on the streets, too!
Comment by Lauren P. — 31 July 2008 @ 11:14 amIf I were at a dinner party and one of the guests brought it to my attention
that she had been “ordained” a womynpriest, in all honesty I would try to
change the subject quickly. There’s nothing that
I could say that would change her mind. Also, I’d hesitate to debate
with the lady in the article because she, quite frankly, sounds very unstable.
Look at how she has behaved in the past, disrupting ordinations and getting
arrested for trespassing. These actions give the impression of a pathologically
immature and narcissistic person. You can’t have a reasoned discussion about
anything with people like that.
If I had the fortitude to confront her about this nonsense, I don’t think I
would bother discussing it in terms of Church teaching, since she’s already
plenty familiar with that. As another poster pointed out, these folks see
everything in secular terms of “rights” and “justice,” so a discussion of
theology and sacraments is going to fall on deaf ears. It’s like we don’t
even speak the same language. Instead I would speak in terms that secular
liberals do understand – specifically terms like hypocrisy and tolerance.
I would point out that this lady holds other positions that are in conflict
with the Catholic Church. Even if she were a man, she still would be a bad
candidate for ordination. I would ask her why she insists on calling herself
a Catholic when she rejects nearly everything taught by the Church. Isn’t
this hypocritical? Especially in the USA where there is a smorgasbord of
religions to choose from. Why not become an Anglican, or a Unitarian, or something
else that actually reflects her views? It’s hypocritical and dishonest to
claim to be something you aren’t. Even secular leftists can agree with that.
I’d also point out that she has displayed intolerance of Catholicism by
Comment by AJP — 31 July 2008 @ 11:21 amdisrupting the ordinations and bishops’ meeting. I’d say, look, if you don’t
like the Church’s teaching about women’s ordination, fine. It’s a free
country, and no one is forcing you to be Catholic or to agree with Catholicism.
If you’d like to become a Unitarian minister or an Episcopal priest, we aren’t
going to stop you. Ultimately it’s live and let live. But in return you
need to show us the same respect, and not do things like disrupt our ordinations
and meetings. Some of us Catholics are just fine with the Church’s
teaching on the priesthood – don’t we deserve the right to conduct our
affairs in peace? By your actions you have shown your attitude to be, it’s not
enough that I am free to reject Catholicism, instead no one should be able to
practice Catholicism because I disagree with it. And that, lady, is the
essence of intolerance. And for a secular leftist, intolerance is about
the biggest sin there is.
62% ‘No’ now on the Kentucky newspaper poll!
Comment by pelerin — 31 July 2008 @ 11:29 amFirst, my logical German Heritage would give it a try:
Me: “If you are a priest, then the Church ‘infallibly’ taught a lie, which means Satan poisoned the deposit of faith, which means that Christ’s promise was false, which made him a liar, which denies His claim on being the Way, the Truth and the Light, which made him not God, which destroys the whole of the Church.”
Her: [enter kooky oblivious to reality reply] Men are just being mean.
Then my hot-tempered Irish/Italian heritage would flare up. I’d probably shout a bit about selfishness and out right ignorance. I’d be thinking about breaking the wine bottle over her head to give “Veritas in Vino” a chance. The the crucifix on the wall (maybe the wymynpriest would have one) would admonish me, I’d defend the idea saying it would be a charitable beating, and Christ would win of course. I drink the bottle instead and walk home.
Comment by Baron Korf — 31 July 2008 @ 11:29 amWhy are their giant puppets all male?
Comment by Matt Robinson — 31 July 2008 @ 11:52 amWe shouldn’t be so hard on the secular press’ lack of understanding of religious matters… look at the lefty “Catholic” press take on it:
NCR Version
I believe it’s actually worse.
Comment by Matt — 31 July 2008 @ 11:55 amFather Z “werdegast: Has anyone ever heard of a wymynpriest “performing” a Traditional Latin Mass?
I believe that is what Sinead O’Conner did, though my memory is unclear about the details.”
I wonder if we could have a definition of wymynpriest? Sinead O’Connor’s group, the Palmarian Catholic Church (or a subsect thereof) does not have valid orders (see the bottom of http://jloughnan.tripod.com/thucbish.htm). For the sake of sport would it be worthwhile to say that to qualify to be a wymympriest the woman in question has to claim to be a Roman Catholic?
Arguments from tradition, Scripture, etc, are generally useless against these women and their ilk because generally they very clearly want to change the priesthood entirely, not simply make it ‘woman-inclusive’. These women are simply a strategic variant of those those who don’t attempt ordination because they don’t believe in it at all.
Comment by Joe — 31 July 2008 @ 12:10 pmPeace!
Perhaps it is worth considering that being a Christian, being in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is not simply about belonging to “some clique.” It is about joining others in loving Jesus Christ by adherence to His Gosepl and the teachings of the Apostles in prayer and the communal life. “If you love me, you will keep my commands.”
May God bless you.
Comment by Christopher — 31 July 2008 @ 12:19 pmHoly Mary protect you.
In ICXC,
-Christopher
http://www.offthemark.com/search-results/key/inclusiveness/
Check out this link – its very fitting for this case!
She’s definitely a kook, but she’s going to be on the streets while good Catholics aren’t. People that are unfamiliar w/ the Church will see her & believe her case. Its sad, but true.
I’m ashamed to be from KY right now. However, just realize that we’re not all (or even mostly) like her!
Comment by Erika — 31 July 2008 @ 12:32 pmHeck, I’ll give it a try.
Their fallback position is that they were “ordained” by a “valid” Catholic Bishop. But
this Bishop could no more ordain a woman than the Holy Father could consecrate pretzels
and beed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is invalid matter. It’s simply not
possible.
A woman is invalid matter for the sacrament of Ordination.
Comment by Tony — 31 July 2008 @ 2:30 pmThat should read “pretzels and beer”. Sorry.
Comment by Tony — 31 July 2008 @ 2:30 pmI wish I could tell you what would work (as an argument) for anyone who buys into the “females being ordained” claptrap. I used to believe that, myself, before I came to my senses… but it was a sort of “perfect storm” which changed my mind and heart on the matter:
1) meeting my very orthodox future wife in 1994, who was adamantly opposed to female ordination. (Since my liberal upbringing led me to favor “women priests” for the sake of being “fair” and “just” to women, the presence of a woman who disagreed—and one who was dear to me—was a great shock. I’m a believer in chivalry (oddly enough, for a reformed liberal), so “dismissing” her view was out of the question.
2) Ordinatio Sacerdotalis came out in 1994, from a pope whom I revered. The language of infallibility, coupled with the childish petulance of those who criticized and dissented from OS, also left a bad taste in my mouth for “that side” of the issue. (Recognizing your confreres in belief as “jerks” really does something to one’s attachment to the goal.)
3) Once I was removed from my previously liberal environments, and started on a widely mixed diet of Karl Keating, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Fr. Leslie Rumbe & Fr. Charles Carty (to whose clarity I owe a great deal of my “reversion”), etc., logic helped to do the rest.
In Christ,
Comment by Brian C. — 31 July 2008 @ 2:57 pmBrian C.
I deleted a comment posted on behalf of another person. People should post their own comments.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 31 July 2008 @ 10:57 pmMany of these women, and the leftist nominal catholics who agree with them, couch their dissent in terms of “rights” and “fairness.” The church isn’t “fair” to women who feel they are called to the priesthood, they say. We have to listen to their testimony and be “open” to it, they say. This twisted reasoning is often used to justify remaining within the Catholic church and making public, self-centered demands like the ordination thing, rather than simply owning up to their differences with official church teaching, and moving on to a church that does accept their views.
So I often wonder, given that logic, would it be within your ‘rights,’ if you were to join a mosque and then demand publicly that you be allowed a meal during the daytime in Ramadan? Would it be ‘unfair’ of your fellow Muslims to deny you the right to this meal—no matter how much you felt you should have it?
If you personally felt that hats were an abomination, would it be within your ‘rights’ to join a synagogue and refuse to wear the appropriate head covering?
Would it be ‘right’ for you join a Hindu congregation and demand that they let you have a filet mignon at the next potluck?
Can anyone really imagine any of these dissenting catholic-types accusing the Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish communities in the above scenarios of showing “unfairness” to non-fasters or or meat-eaters or anti-hat-wearers?
Of course, were anyone to actually waltz into any of the above religions and publicly make these sort of demands, he would be accused by the same crowd of showing severe “intolerance,” refusing to accept the diverse beliefs of others, imposing an imperialistic western morality upon others, etc.
Yet they cannot see that they are doing exactly the same thing to Catholicism—attempting to impose foreign beliefs unjustly upon a religion. They are blind to their own intolerance and their own refusal to accept true diversity—demanding that others conform to their views.
It is the height of hypocrisy, and deserves to be called out and derided for what it is.
Comment by senorverde — 31 July 2008 @ 11:13 pmSince I used to belong to the “other side” in this dispute, I tried to think of what reasoning would have gotten through to me. I couldn’t come up with any. However, I did just resign my position as a lector at my parish. Enough is enough. Having that army of laypeople up there just reinforces the impression that what the priest does isn’t all that unique, so what’s the big deal about women doing it?
Comment by Paula — 1 August 2008 @ 3:17 amVirgil wrote:
I have spoken with several of these ladies over the years, over dinner and during prandials post prayer experience. Arguing theology doesn’t get anywhere. They’ve heard it all before, and written articles and books refuting it. And they firmly believe, and are probably correct, that the majority of Catholics in the pews agree with them.
I have no doubt that some of these women (“wymyn” is so much tougher to type) have the hairsplitting talents of brilliant lawyers. So now I’m wondering what the standard wymynpriest apologist argument is for the point that “You can’t ordain a woman any more than you can consecrate pretzels and beer.”
I mean, the wymynpriest advocates in Clevesem’s anecdote who sent up a collective groan at that argument reminded me of my own groans at fundamentalist interpretations of, say, “Call no man on earth father.” Speaking as someone who has never met one of these women, I truly am wondering what they have to say to that, which they clearly think is the better point in the debate. =S
Comment by Enbrethiliel — 1 August 2008 @ 4:28 amNow the poll hat 43% for no
I guess citizens in Lexington KY are
voting without considering Canon Law.
Too much evangelization work to do here.
Derik Castillo
Comment by Derik Castillo — 1 August 2008 @ 12:42 pmGoogle the phrase “Ministry of Irritation” (I am not kidding!) to learn more about the tactics of this movement. You can’t make this stuff up!
Comment by Tomás LĂłpez — 3 August 2008 @ 2:51 pmI think Father’s right about Sinead O’Connor. Here’s what the BBC had to say about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/328709.stm. I remember thinking at the time how important it was to cleave to Peter.
And what would I say at a dinner party? I would feel duty bound to express my strong objection at the woman’s dissembling and to warn her that she had put herself ouside the church and committed a grave sin. I would not expect to convince her but, please God, if we can stand up for what is right calmly and charitably but firmly, we might just have some good effect on our auditors. And so we should first offer a silent prayer to the Holy Spirit before launching in …
Thanks for this post Father. It hasn’t been a pleasant read but I had never had to think about this issue before – what to say in company, I mean. And we should think about it. Sadly, it might happen – and we have to stand up and be counted.
Comment by Simon Platt — 3 August 2008 @ 6:06 pm