NCFishwrap, Sr. Fiedler, Fr. Bourgeois… what could go wrong?

The National Catholic Fishwrap continues in it open dissent against the Church’s formally and irrevocably defined doctrine concerning ordinary of males only, as in only men, exclusively men, no women, not even wymyn.

We have seen Sr. Maureen Fiedler before.  She gushed over pro-abortion Senator Kennedy, she had a nutty when Card. Burke spoke about voting, she was not pleased by the nomination of Archbp. Dolan, and she was unable to grasp what Pope Benedict said about condoms.  Therefore, we want to know what she thinks about Maryknoller (Fr.) Roy Bourgeois and the ordination of wymyn.

My emphases and comments.

Roy Bourgeois and Bill Callahan: Vive!
by Maureen Fiedler on Apr. 05, 2011

When I heard about the patriarchal ultimatum [LOL!] (recant your support of women’s ordination or be dismissed) given to Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois I was stunned, but not surprised.

It brought my mind back to the day when my good friend, Bill Callahan, then a Jesuit, was dismissed from his order. Although Bill’s dismissal was wrapped in different language, his advocacy for women’s ordination was a major part of the accusations against him. [And what were the other reasons?]

Both men provide powerful [one person's "power" is another person's "lunacy"] public witnesses for their beliefs. Roy preached at the 2008 [non] ordination of a woman friend in the Roman Catholic Women Priests movement. Bill was a plenary speaker at the first Women’s Ordination Conference in 1975 [were there big puppets?] and launched Priests for Equality that same year, with women’s ordination as a prominent part of the charter.

Both were told to be silent, and both refused. [So both broke their promises of obedience to their superiors.] Roy was told to recant his public stand a few months after he preached at his friend’s ordination, but continued to speak his [improperly formed] conscience publicly [and cause public scandal]. In 1980, Bill was silenced by the Jesuits on the issue of women’s ordination, but resumed his public stance a year later. Bill was dismissed from the Society of Jesus in the early 1990’s, and Roy is likely to face the same fate in the next few weeks.  [It occurs to me to ask: how contumacious did you have to be to be dismissed from the Jesuit's in the early 90's?  From the Maryknollers?]

Many women have suffered in this movement as well. [sniff] The 100+ women in the Roman Catholic Women Priests movement are (theoretically, at least, since they don’t accept it) excommunicated. [Excommunication depends on it being accepted?] Many are persona not grata in parishes and Catholic settings, and even among a few of their friends. [What is it we read in Scripture about eventually being treated like a tax collector after being admonished at various times?]

But male priests who are willing to stand up for justice for women in the church are few and far between. The male clerical culture works to keep them “in line.” [the inevitable reduction of the ordination to power] That’s why both Bill and Roy deserve our admiration and gratitude. They walk with the brave women who stand strong to speak out for what ought to be an obvious value in our church: the fundamental equality of women and men in all roles in our church.

One day, in not too many years, we will look back on this denial of human rights the way we look at slavery today. We will lament the ways the church gave aid and support to such sexism and injustice. And we will remember the women and men who challenged the system as prophets.

What every reader must understand is that these womymn and the malewoymymn with them (can shouldn’t be womanist, after all) are dying for approval from the very men they accuse of being patriarchal and unjust.

They crave approval from men like an addict her next needle.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to NCFishwrap, Sr. Fiedler, Fr. Bourgeois… what could go wrong?

  1. Mark01 says:

    What’s wrong with being a nun?

  2. Andy Milam says:

    One day, in not too many years, we will look back on this denial of human rights the way we look at slavery today. We will lament the ways the church gave aid and support to such sexism and injustice. And we will remember the women and men who challenged the system as prophets.
    —Since when is Ordination a “denial of human rights?” The only cliche missing in this story is a reference to Naziism. The other ridiculous leap is comparing Ordination to slavery. I’ve known a great many priests in my life, in all stages of formation….from a high ranking Cardinal in Rome all the way down to high school freshman in a high school seminary in Wisconsin; at no time have any of them considered themselves slaves or even indentured servants. It is amazing to me that the leaps in logic are made the way they are and that they are not corrected; even the fishwrap has to recognize that error. Right?

  3. ttucker says:

    How can you be stunned but not surprised?

  4. Brooklyn says:

    I heard Msgr. Philip Reilly speak about women ordination briefly once, and he said that only a very small percentage of men are called to be priests, that most men cannot be priests, so why is it so surprising that women cannot be priests? Being a priest is being on the frontline of our spiritual battle, priests are the prime target of the evil one. It is a specific calling to to men to whom are given specific spiritual gifts. It is not an individual’s decision, it is God’s decision. Yet, these womymn (so aptly named, Father) will persist in their “rights.” They are not shaking their fists at the church, they are shaking their fists at God Almighty. I fear for their souls.

  5. oblomov says:

    Yet more nunsense from the proponents of the future Church

  6. benedetta says:

    Oh those Jesuits, those Maryknollers, what meanies, what disciplinarians!

  7. How old is the nun in question? A product of the sixties, no doubt. Sigh!

  8. Henry Edwards says:

    Couldn’t she at least refer to them as “Father Roy” and “Father Bill”–at least until they’ve been defrocked (better sooner than later)–or would this too be considered patriarchalist?

  9. Malateste says:

    So clearly these poor people are mistaken, very possibly in their theology, and certainly in their understanding of or relationship to the hierarchy of the RC church. The attempt to frame the rdination issue in terms of civil-rights-style “equality” is either annoying or silly, depending on how you look at it. By all means, let’s go ahead and deplore the division of our Church and the lack of clear thinking among many of her adherents, and hope for a better understanding of and fidelity to God’s law among these schismatic groups.

    But this, Fr. Z:

    What every reader must understand is that these womymn and the malewoymymn with them (can shouldn’t be womanist, after all) are dying for approval from the very men they accuse of being patriarchal and unjust.

    They crave approval from men like an addict her next needle.

    is just a weird thing to say in this context. It sounds less like a well-educated theologian and priest lamenting a theological misunderstanding, and more like a high-school boy turning away muttering under his breath that the girl who rejected him is probably secretly just dying for it. [Something I never experienced. But... I. AM. RIGHT. And when your are right you can't be wrong.] The addict/needle thing is especially … strangely energetic.

    By focusing on restoring the power balance (“they’re not equal to us, they’re actually longing for approval from us!”) it makes it sound as though this whole issue really is about power (men wanting to keep power, men uncomfortable with women having power). [Yes.] Whereas it seems to me that the Church’s case against women’s ordination is defensible because it argues precisely the opposite: women are equal to men, they absolutely deserve to have power, but in this case, the strict theological facts suggest that this particular role is not appropriate for them. Why would you make this about power, when the point is that it’s not a power thing? [Nice try.]

    It’s unfortunate, especially in this context, because the very last thing the anti-female-ordination cause needs is vocal support from people who appear to have personal issues with women. [That's just dumb. But I am glad that you are not in favor of the ordination of women.]

  10. irishgirl says:

    Oh, I shall be sooo glad when the ‘biological solution’ rids us of people Madame Fiedler and her fellow travelers!
    The tribe which clamors for female ordination only wants POWER! That’s all they understand.

  11. nanetteclaret says:

    Malateste -

    I think Fr. Z’s observation is very astute. I would venture to guess that St. Maureen Fiedler wanted to play on the boys’ softball team in grade school to prove that she was “equal” to any boy. She wants to play on the mens’ “priest team” and they won’t let her! wah! wah! wah! This is nothing more than the rant of an 11-year old girl who is stuck in the “tomboy” mode and who never grew up to appreciate the role a woman CAN play in the church. Evidently she chooses to ignore the fact of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s humility, and that because of her humility, she is now Queen of the Angels. If “Sr.” Maureen would see the benefit of being on Our Lady’s “team” instead of the priests’ “team,” she would be a lot happier and certainly more “fulfilled.” Not to mention that she would avoid the spiritual danger she is in now.

  12. Brooklyn says:

    Malateste – why do you think these people want women to be priests if not for power? Certainly it isn’t a matter of serving God, because they are going against the very church founded by Jesus Christ. So if not power, then what is their motivation?

  13. Ignatius says:

    ” They walk with the brave women who stand strong to speak out…”

    Do people like this Sister have a random generator of this type of platitudes? If they do, they should refrain from using it. The results are incredibly predictable and boring. It seems that I have read this very passage hundreds of times.

  14. benedetta says:

    Are you a woman, Malateste? Because if you are asking what Catholic women make of the analogy, I would say that it is correct and also very fitting. Why would you make the leap that the one speaking it has some “problem with women”? Equal dignity does not mean that we should somehow be excused from our actions merely by the fact of being a woman. If the shoe fits…

    Clearly Fr. Z is not saying that the womynpreest movement ( all 100?) are correct that the priesthood should be regarded as a social construct rooted in worldly power. They regard it that way, totally and completely, and in furtherance of their craving, they do things (which appear desperate) designed to satisfy, at all costs, that craving. So all that they do is to generate notice, attention, reaction, from, people who happen to be, men.

    Whereas an authentic feminism doesn’t approach things that way. It is rooted in human dignity as bestowed by the Creator, whereas this sort of approach is rooted in materialism.

    Thus, the eco-feminism preoccupation of Sr. Fiedler’s order is consistent with a distorted, secular view of feminism. Women are not looking to be incessantly compared to men, often times to their great economic disadvantage, as well as in other senses. So that is why young Catholic women do not flock to their order and it does not produce young vocations. The order itself should perhaps take the hint from the Jesuits and the Maryknollers and ask this Sister herself for what reason does she see her vocation all about yearning to live out the vocation of a man. That it does not seems to indicate that it wholeheartedly accepts the very recent twist of feminism which really is all about contraception and a worldly visibility.

    It denies the great number of accomplished female doctors of the church, female saints, current Catholic women leaders, as well as many many women who achieved great “success” and were accomplished in a wide array of ventures even before the advent of The Pill. And the many who now reject The Pill as the instrument of salvation and the cornerstone of equal rights.

    If her order truly believed in the equal rights of women and women’s dignity as a pillar of social justice, they would devote extraordinary effort to prayer at abortuaries and outreach to pregnant women in crisis, apparently pressured to kill life in the womb all for the happenstance of providence that they are women.

  15. FrCharles says:

    In our time, the category of ‘human rights’ is misused in an effort to deny the created distinction between male and female. Thus, there is claimed a ‘human right’ for two people of the same sex to marry each other, even though such a thing is an absurdity. Whom the Church has authority to ordain is no more a question of human rights as my ability to claim that I am denied my human rights because I can’t become a mother.

  16. Malateste says:

    I think Fr. Z’s observation is very astute. I would venture to guess that St. Maureen Fiedler wanted to play on the boys’ softball team in grade school to prove that she was “equal” to any boy. She wants to play on the mens’ “priest team” and they won’t let her! wah! wah! wah!

    nanetteclaret–
    Speculating on an adversary’s motivations instead of addressing her case is Bulverism (a fallacy). It certainly has its pleasures, but surely we have an obligation to use our God-given reason when we can.

    The particularly unfortunate thing about Bulverism here is that it invites counter-Bulverism from the other side, which they were already too eager to practice. Saying, “You just want to be on the softball team just so you can feel special!” invites the response, “Well, you want to keep me off the team so *you* can feel special!”. Saying, “You just want this so you can grab power,” begs for the counter, “So you want to deny me this so you can keep the power to yourself?”

    The best possible thing that any supporter of male-only ordination could do, imho, is to scrupulously defend the abstract right of women to hold authority, strenuously support all licit instances of women in power, and generally behave in such a way as to focus the attention where it should be– on the facts of the theology of ordination, not general “misogyny.” Going around venting spite about women “running our lives” (a gem from earlier this week), sneering about those uppity nuns, and generally dragging the issue back down to battle-of-the-sexes terms, does nobody any good, least of all the Church.

  17. Banjo pickin girl says:

    People assume they know what other people are thinking. They assume they know why a woman would want to be a priests but they could be wrong about that. Having actually had conversations with women who were on priest-track in other ecclesial communities and also Catholic ones who really didn’t understand the difference between the Church and other ecclesial communities I could see there were many different reasons for the desire to be a priest. Most of them felt called to do so. If someone is wrong about something as serious about the nature of the priesthood it is unhelpful to play mindreading games and engage in namecalling. People just need to calm down and realize that God really is in control and we must abandon ourselves to His providence in everything, even the things that seem terrible.

    I am speaking as one who has been badly hurt by very holy people and have had no recourse except to God. We need to pray and pray some more.

  18. robtbrown says:

    Malateste,

    Actually, I think Fr Z makes a good point. The indicator that he is right is that she refers to priests with only the first name–she wants to be one of the boys.

    And these people are so predictable–they all seem to have an inclination toward Marxist categories.

  19. benedetta says:

    Malateste, one need not even speculate as to motives or intentions to observe that the outward actions display a reactionary approach. It is all about an attempt to force others, who are men, to change the practice of their religion. Why not merely accept the right of others’ to practice their faith as is? If one feels called then there are other places where it is already possible. Why the apparent obsession with singling out, and making these men, in this particular religion?

    Also wonder about the insistence in some Catholic places that the Real Presence be minimized and taught as essentially a symbol or a banquet of bread. If you want to believe that it is merely a symbol or it is bread in a Marxist view and you feel “holier” thereby, or more in line with the earliest Christians (which is of course debatable) then you are free to make that choice and calculation, but, what’s it to you that others do choose to believe and wish to worship and adore? Why gut the Church of candles, why all but eliminate or undermine the spirit of Adoration, why deny others communion and refuse to teach a universally comprehended and appreciated doctrine? Why does it follow that since you have concluded that it is just a symbol and a feast that others must be prohibited from its fullness?

  20. cblanch says:

    “And we will remember the women and men who challenged the system as prophets.”

    I’m sure we will…as FALSE prophets.

  21. kjmacarthur says:

    “They walk with the brave women who stand strong to speak out…” Wait a minute; the men are walking, but the women are standing (and standing strong, I might add). Somehow I detect in this difference between the Ambulatory and Stationary a deep-seated sexism in the good sister.

  22. Brooklyn says:

    Malateste – Are you saying that we need to placate those who are challenging the Church’s authority and make them feel good about themselves?

    I’m still waiting for an answer as to what these women really want if it is not power.

  23. benedetta says:

    Banjo picking girl, I am really sorry to hear that you have been hurt and have no recourse except to prayer in God. It’s hard to say which is more scandalous, being hurt by folks who appear outwardly “holy” or those who profess the ideal of tolerance no matter one’s beliefs or situation. It’s a given that there will be sin among members of the Church, whatever their outward appearance, and regardless of their political beliefs. Isn’t it true that someone could support the most liberal campaign ticket and still be capable of the harshest intolerant acts, be very judgmental, and extremely close-minded? A political view alone doesn’t offer a solution to sin does it. Even where there exist outward mechanisms to redress wrongs that can and do occur, earthly crafted “justice” rarely satisfies the way recourse to God can and does. That is one reason why at the end of the day the Church’s foundation of justice inherent in the human being appeals to me so much, as opposed to purely materialistic or political formulations.

  24. Pachomius says:

    “When I heard about the patriarchal ultimatum”
    The ultimatum was issued by a patriarch! Goodness, what powerful enemies this priest’s made.

  25. Centristian says:

    If Christ had called women to ordination and such was his manifest will, expressed through his Church throughout the ages, then refusing ordination to women simply on account of their gender would be an injustice. It would be an injustice, in fact, universally tolerated, that has endured the test of time without interruption, one that has dominated the Church for the whole of her existence.

    Tell me, though, if the Church is truly Christ’s body, if it is truly of Divine origin, if it is truly the very family of God, and if the Holy Spirit truly lives and moves within the community of believers, can it really be supposed that such an injustice against 1/2 of the Church would have been, in the first place, initiated by the Apostles, themselves, in spite of Christ’s will, and then passed down, like a tradition, even to their successors in the present day? Can it really be that the leaders of the Church across space and time have been stubbornly rejecting and continue even unto today to reject the Holy Spirit’s constant plea to share ordination to the priesthood with our beloved sisters in Christ? Can it be that base sexism is really that much stronger that the Spirit, even in this age in which sexism is abhorrent to Western minds?

    If the hierarchy’s refusal to invite women to ordination actually does, in fact, represent no less than the hierarchy’s organized disobedience to the Holy Spirit–a 2000-year long injustice that Christ has permitted to completely disfigure his Church–then of what value can his Church even be, I wonder? For that matter, how Divine can Christ really be if the human beings in charge of managing his Church could completely turn their backs on him and thwart his will for his Church and priesthood throughout it’s ENTIRE history? In that case, what is it, really, that you are so adamant about becoming priests of?

    If you really do accept, however, that Christ is Divine and so likewise his Church, and that the Holy Spirit remains with His Church, do you not have also to acknowledge that Christ’s will could not have been–would not have been–so wholly and completely disregarded by the very men whom he, himself, handpicked to feed his sheep, and all of the successors of those men, down to this moment? Surely enough of them would have obeyed Christ’s will so as to have, by now, established a clear precedent of women priests. Surely some of the apostles and enough of the popes would have welcomed women into the household of the clergy, into the priesthood. So, if Christ is Divine and His Church is Divine and his Apostles are saints, hasn’t male-only ordination got to be interpreted and classified as a tradition, at this point, rather than as a mere injustice without any reasonable explanation for its endurance?

    Does it not also stand to reason that had Christ forseen that the men of his Church would have been tempted to exclude women from the priesthood out of sheer sexism, despite his will, that he would have led by example, choosing at least one woman (and probably more than one) to number amongst his apostles?

    Worshipping a Christ who calls women to ordination is idolatry. All we are doing is creating our own god in our own image when we fabricate a history of Christ that is false and a will of God that is not his, but our own. At the end of the day, women who pretend to the priesthood share only in the priesthood of a sad delusion that originates, I suspect, from a disordered need to be just like the boys.

    Dear sisters, can it be that you weren’t exempted from the priesthood because you’re not fit to hang with the boys (most of the boys have been exempted from the priesthood, too) but because you have, in fact, the potential to fulfil an even higher role that has been carved out for you? Want to have a huge influence over the priests and bishops who run the Church? Fine.

    Raise them.

  26. Philangelus says:

    I suspect the want the same thing that men want when they become priests.

    I also don’t believe God is calling women to be priests. But after talking to some women who truly felt stymied in their calling to become priests, I don’t think they really feel it’s about power. It’s about being able to minister to other people from a recognized position in the Church. It is about being acknowledged.

    I don’t think it’s about achieving male approval, though, because if they wanted masculine approval, they could get it in spades by becoming nuns and standing up every time a priest entered the room, walking around with eyes downcast, and saying things like “Whatever you say, Father.” This is more about *recognition* than approval. They want women’s spirituality recognized (that’s only fair: if men have specific spiritual gifts that lend themselves to the priesthood, women have specific spiritual gifts as well) and the way they see it best recognized is by bestowing a feminine character on the priesthood.

    Again, I don’t agree. I’m of the “don’t ordain women” belief myself. :-) But mischaracterizing their impulse or guessing about it or claiming they want approval isn’t the best route to understanding what they want.

  27. Bryan Boyle says:

    @Centristian: Re your last paragraph and comment:

    BRAVO!

    Exactly.

    Exactly.

  28. benedetta says:

    Philangelus, I see your point however what would you say about the various women who have ministered and do minister in recognized positions in the Church? When you say “recognized positions” would canonization by the Church suffice? What about a high salary? Or backing of Bishop? It seems that women have not been discouraged from this fact alone from being active in leadership roles in the Church or being active in “ministry”. And the Church does not gloss over the fact that women have often been subjected to terrible dehumanizing treatment in society. If it is true as Sr. Fiedler says that women in certain cultures or outlooks can be treated or made to feel as if “slaves” or reduced to their materialist capabilities for others’ exploitation, the Church certainly stands with them in solidarity. Though it does not necessary follow that the remedy for that treatment is to ordain the one hundred or so women in this movement especially given that the Jesuits and the Maryknolls themselves are discouraging this.

  29. Ralph says:

    Oh the many and varied ways the enemy will work to steal our souls!

    How many have lost the reward gained for them on Calvary following the “love inspired” logic of “well meaning” women such as this one? How many of God’s little children have become disallusioned from having to try to follow the unpopular truth that is Christ’s Church?

    When I read articles like this I fear for my five little children.
    Parents – Fast, Pray and seek out good teachers!

  30. StMichael71 says:

    No joke – some theologians and otherwise claim that “the nature of Roman law” requires acceptance and “reception” by the person the law was intended for in order for the law to take effect. This strikes me as utterly ridiculous, but it is a wide-spread rumor/urban legend. I’ve heard this used as the reason we can disregard the rubrics of the Mass, ignore Redemptionis Sacramentum, and that this was the historical reason people ignored the decree of Paul VI requiring Latin in seminaries, etc. etc. It’s no surprise that it is being applied to excommunication. The corollary is the idea that “custom” can override all law or rubrics, regardless of reprobation of particular practices (“It is our custom to leave the wine in the flagon during the Eucharistic thanksgiving activity of the community until the people of God share from the cup together”).

  31. benedetta says:

    StMichael71, that is so interesting. And frightening if that is what is being used as justification. I see use of that word, “custom”, quite frequently where I am yet there certainly is no grounding in popular support or folk wisdom. If questioned then the big guns in Dutch theology are whipped out it seems…so is it elitist or isn’t it, since the average person doesn’t read a lot of theology (one way or another apparently)? Wonder if when St. Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen near to his eventual martyrdom, he considered himself, first and foremost, a Roman citizen, or a Christian? Though he was a Roman by birth. I like your blog. I am particularly curious about the childhood days of the one who was derided as the “dumb ox” for a variety of reasons…

  32. Fr. Basil says:

    \\One day, in not too many years, we will look back on this denial of human rights the way we look at slavery today. \\

    Since when in ordination a “human rights issue”? NOBODY has a right to be ordained.

  33. Dionysius says:

    Now, this may seem redundant, BUT… Is the National Catholic Reporter an OFFICIAL Catholic newspaper? If so can’t the local bishop censor it?? Furthermore aren’t this sister’s comments grounds for disciplinary action?? If not by her (possibly assenting) superior than by her bishop???

    It all just doesn’t sit right. Where is the justice? She’s a sister! She represents us! And she’s dragging our Church and her sacred doctrines through the mud! And all of this in a (supposedly, I think) official Catholic periodical! God please save us from Thine enemies!!

  34. Centristian says:

    “Now, this may seem redundant, BUT… Is the National Catholic Reporter an OFFICIAL Catholic newspaper? If so can’t the local bishop censor it??”

    No, not anymore than he can censor the New York Times or the Washington Post. We have this little thing called freedom of the press in America. The hierarchy could condemn the rag and warn Catholics that it does not always contain articles that accurately represent the official Church’s sense of things, despite the journal’s pretense to the use of the word “Catholic”, but, no, bishops do not have the constitutional authority to censor newspapers.

  35. mibethda says:

    Malateste,
    Nanetteclaret is actually very nearly on target with her comment as to Sr. Maureen Fiedler,s motivations. The sister, herself, in a Rumi forum discussion a few months ago – which is available on Youtube – ascribes her motivation as a feminist to perceived discrimination when she was in school – as well as to a Damascene moment at age 11 while observing her mother doing the family ironing (which the mother apparently enjoyed) , and realized a strong aversion to the role exemplified by her mother.

  36. A bishop does have canonical authority over the use of the name ‘Catholic’ by organizations in his diocese. So the bishop of whatever diocese includes the headquarters of the NCR could withdraw their canonical right to use the name ‘Catholic’, or could set conditions for them to keep that right … and, I suppose, he could impose some sort of canonical sanctions if they kept on going with the name after such a decree.

    There is a very real risk of assigning worse motives to our opponents; but I think we can truthfully say that an idea of power which is uncomfortably similar to some Marxist and some postmodernist ideas is at the root of much of the women’s ordination movement, without necessarily assigning this motive to any particular member of the movement. A lot of people get deceived, and a lot of people don’t really have clear underpinnings for why they believe what they believe, especially in our postmodern age. We can discern that the ideology is poisonous, and if taken to its conclusion antithetical to the whole Christian idea of how leadership should be a matter of service, without judging the individuals who propound it.

    (And, yes, the whole thing looks to me to be based on a huge misunderstanding of the sacramental nature of ordination.)

  37. benedetta says:

    mibethda, Oh that horrid ironing! Yes, it is ok to detest ironing and you can still be fulfilled in your vocation…

    But in general it is curious isn’t it, that male priests are being disciplined yet Sr. Feidler can say the exact same thing and be enabled to, carry on. If the point is to be treated exactly equally? Cue our friend SonofMonica with the Lion King…

    And how is it that she can deem who is or is not a prophet? These one hundred women versus how many million women slaughtered in formation and sometimes precisely for being a woman in the first place? Never permitted to either walk or stand. Their rights, forgotten in their envisioning of eco-feminism, never to be discussed or mentioned apparently.

    [FWIW... I HATE ironing.]

  38. Brad says:

    Compare the power hungry to the power (not that She craved any) of the Theotokos: Queen of angels, saints, heaven and earth; She who contained the creator of creation within the confines her womb.

    Women, remember Her and don’t sell yourselves short.

  39. Charles E Flynn says:

    Could Fr. Bourgeois’ letter be an example of tilly-vally?

    http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-til1.htm

    As for ironing, some people are will to go quite far in an attempt to make it interesting:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olU947pcHeE

    I regret losing the reference to a video made by a Marine in which he demonstrated proper ironing technique, and no doubt tried to make it interesting to men.