Justice now! Stop the discrimination!

In a homily entitled “…and Mary was welcomed,” preached at the Pax Christi National Assembly on 22 July, retired Detroit Auxiliary Bishop His Excellency Most Reverend Thomas Gumbleton opined that there are Scriptural arguments in support of the ordination of women.

Because of them, he holds, the Church should rethink its opposition.

There’s more. Bp. Gumbleton did acknowledge that one can cite contrary Scriptural passages!

Among these, are two from St Paul:

"Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith."  (1 Cor 14:34 D-R)


"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." (1 Tim 2:11-12 D-R).

Nevertheless, Bp. Gumbleton believes there are passages in the New Testament that counteract these passages and that open the door for women’s ordination, among them those that speak of women in teaching roles and women who offered hospitality in their homes to the Apostles.

(Hmmm, those texts seem compelling!)

But the bishop thinks that the strongest pro-ordination argument may come from last Sunday’s Gospel (Ordinary Time’s 16th Sunday), concerning Martha and Mary. He makes much of the fact that Mary was seated at Jesus’ feet and that this is the position reserved for male disciples!

Quoth Gumbleton:

“We have today’s gospel, Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus as a disciple would, and in that time, only a man would.”

(Okay, I’m convinced!!)

But I think we can do better than this in our use of Scripture in order to become the Really Cool and Relevant Church.

Why stop with the ordination of women??

The same Gumbletonian scriptural hermeneutics used to challenge Holy Mother Church’s doctrine on the inadmissibility of women to Holy Orders can be used to challenge the Church’s doctrine of the inadmissibility of animals to the Holy Communion.

Of course, we wouldn’t be the first Christian "Church" to give form of communion to animals.

Anglicans have already beat us there, just as they already "ordain" women to the priesthood.

But at least we don’t have to drag our feet for animal communion as we have with women’s ordination!!

However, in order to find biblical reasons for giving Communion to animals, we first have to offset those passages that seem to oppose the idea. 

As usual Bishop Gumbleton has lead the way!  He shows us how to find passages countering St. Paul’s admonition that women should should be quiet in church.

After all, Scripture commands us … JESUS commands us "nolite dare sanctum canibusGive not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).

Can we justify admitting Fido to Holy Communion in the face of that biblical reproach?

No problem! Twitter

Just as Bishop Gumbleton cited the passage in which Mary sits at Jesus’ feet – something that in that time only a man would do – as reason for ordaining women, so too we can cite biblical passages that urge us to give the Eucharist to animals.

Jesus said… Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them.” (Matthew 6:26 D-R).

“Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon him.” (Psalm 147[146]:9 D-R).

We need to remember that the Word did not descend only into human being (man AND woman).  Indeed, the Bible refers to Christ as “the Lamb of God … who taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29 D-R).

Moreover, early Christian art frequently depicted Jesus as a – wait for it – a lamb and as a fish.

Didn’t St Francis love animals? St. Anthony of Padua preached to fish!  Who can forget St. Bernard and those dogs.


It’s time for us to get over our species-centrism!

Stop the discrimination, say I!

Stop barring animals from receiving the Eucharist!

Anglicans lead the way!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Stu says:

    Stop “specism” now!

  2. meunke says:

    “In a homily entitled “…and Mary was welcomed,” preached at the Pax Christi National Assembly on 22 July, retired Detroit Auxiliary Bishop His Excellency Most Reverend Thomas Gumbleton opined that there are Scriptural arguments in support of the ordination of women.”
    – Yeeeuuuuup… I think that pretty much says everything you need to know about Pax Christi. Well, that and the members that I’ve met telling me I’ve fallen for an apostate version of Christianity created by Constantine because I’m not an absolutist pacifist.

    In many ways, I’ve found the people of PC that I’ve met are further out there than your average Sedevacantist. This story doesn’t really surprise me at all.

  3. basilorat says:

    Doesn’t His Excellency recognize that he is guilty of the most egregious sin of clericalism by exalting his opinions as better than everyone else’s?

    He really isn’t much different than a lot of bishops…because he’s a bishop, he believes he has the “gnosis” and can readily spout off an expert opinion on Scripture, Ecclesiology, Finance and Economics, Psychology…on and on and on. He’s as clerical as the “conservative” bishops.

    I love the priesthood and episcopacy, but frankly, the majority of bishops make my stomach turn…fiddleback and lace, or Slabbinck and polyester…makes no difference.

    Archbishop Burke…where are you?????????????????

  4. Supertradmum says:

    Gumbleton wanted to give Holy Communion to three “gays” at the 2002 USCCB Conference. The three were arrested for gate crashing…

  5. janek3615 says:

    His Excellency Bishop Gumbleton missed his calling as a stand-in for Walter Brennan in a John Wayne movie. The bishop and his own faithful band of aging disciples are just too funny for words. These folks are pure corn.

  6. “It’s time for us to get over our species-centrism!

    Stop the discrimination, say I!

    Stop barring animals from receiving the Eucharist!

    Anglicans lead the way!”

    ROFL!!! Classic, Father!

  7. UbiCaritas says:

    @Supertradmum: Now, that’s just plain WRONG.

    On so very many levels.


  8. shadowlands says:

    Lassie for Pope, now!!

  9. Dorcas says:

    Fr. Z, this is a pretty clumsy and unpleasant attempt at humor. I’m a little disappointed in this post; it is poisonous rather than funny.

    Gumbleton may be a flake, and he is improperly trying to reopen a closed issue, but you seem to be trying to exaggerate him into something even more ridiculous than his own comments make him.

    Please…not only does he not need any help in that department, it is kind of low to try and get people to dogpile and mock at his expense. It is hard to take your and other commenters’ concern for the gravitas of sacraments seriously, if those who are in error about them are made into fodder for yucks. He is in grave error, and is likely encouraging others. It’s not funny, it’s sad.

  10. Huxtaby says:

    Fr Z, here in the UK at a recent Mass to celebrate the Silver Jubillee of a local priest, someone I know read something the priest had written, something along the lines of we should be encouraging a more “feminized, greener and browner church”! He too seemed to arguing for the ordination of women. More or less the same gubbins was peached at the Mass by the Archbishop of Liverpool, this only gives credance to what the the priest was saying.

    My local PP has on more than one occasion intimated from the pulpit that the ordination of women should be allowed.

    It seems that that the liberals and their wicked movement aint dead yet!

    Anyway if anyone can enlighten me as to what a “browner” churche is – i’d be more than pleased – I do have have a theory and that is the people who espouse a browner church are talking a load of old bull…., which is of course …….brown!

  11. Tradster says:

    Huxtaby: While your “brown theory” is apt, I suspect he was referring to skin color.

  12. asperges says:

    All this goes to explain all the more why much of the Church’s hierarchy lacks credibility and why, frankly, some of them do not deserve respect. They make their make their case worse either by doing nothing or coming out with nonsense.

    Their loyalty should be to the Mystical Body of Christ, not to their own egos. The Reformation came about – at least in part – not because the faithful were bad, but because the Church’s governance was flawed.

  13. teomatteo says:

    “I’m spiritual, just not human centric”

  14. Sleepyhead says:

    For goodness sake, Dorcas, we all know a bit of ‘Lighter fare’ when we see it.

  15. chcrix says:

    In line with the pictures from STmom – I really think that cats are a better example of a liturgical animal than dogs. In fact they might make good theologians or bishops. They have gravitas and know enough to keep their mouths shut.

  16. Dorcas says:

    I know it’s supposed to be funny. I’m giving my opinion that this was a crummy attempt at humour. It is clumsy and forced, and it trys to make Bp. Gumbleton look worse than he what his original staements make him to be by tying on some other outrage that was done by someone else and trying to make it sound like he would logically approve it. This is not a matter of just poking fun at what someone says, but of inviting mockery based on what one imagines he might possibly think. If this is not a case of unjustified detraction, it is, at the very least, super-lame.

    If I didn’t know better, I would say it had been written by someone else. I think that Fr. Z is usually better than this.

    Dear Fr, alhough many of us, I think, enjoy and eagerly await your posts, please take your time; I hope you don’t feel pressured to just churn stuff out. I think we can be entertained and cheered without this style of attack. A lot of people have chimed in addressing the one thing the Bishop had nothing to do with, so I think you have succeeded in exposing him to derision beyond what he deserved.

  17. MarkJ says:

    I think humor is a valid way to approach the frequently ridiculous arguments of the Progressives, whether they be in religion or in politics. And yet what we find funny, the Progressives take for truth… you watch – now that marriage is being redefined, there will be those wanting to tie the knot with their pets. Why discriminate against those who truly love their animals? Using the ever-expanding acronym of approved and promoted sexual deviations (LGBTQ), we can just add another letter ‘B’ for bestiality. That will clinch it – this right will be enshrined in all the “diversity” training in schools and businesses, and there will be no turning back…

  18. Henry Edwards says:

    Nevertheless, Bp. Gumbleton believes there are passages in the New Testament that counteract these passages and that open the door for women’s ordination, among them those that speak of women in teaching roles and women who offered hospitality in their homes to the Apostles.

    The serious point here is that Bp. Gumbleton and other CTA types see the priesthood in terms of service rather than sacrament, as leaders or “presiders” (ugh) rather than offerers of sacrifice for propitiation of sin.

    If this were all the priesthood is about, then there might indeed be an argument that women can do it as well as men.

  19. jray says:

    Dorcas, This is not an isolated comment. Having lived in the Archdiocese of Detroit for most of my life, I can say that this is typical from Bishop Gumbleton. He has been at the helm of dissent on many issues, including liberation theology, gay rights, ordination of women. Taking him seriously is impossible. Laughing helps to keep it all in perspective. Fr. Z has not exposed him to derision, he has exposed himself. But let us pray for him, that a change of heart will put him back in support of our Holy Father and the teachings of the Church.

  20. Gail F says:

    I’m not ignoring the humorous parts of the post, but does Bishop G not notice that Mary, while sitting at the feet of Jesus, does not afterward become a priest? So if this is not an argument for HER priesthood, then it’s not an argument for anyone’s priesthood.

    Also, I have heard the line before that sitting at his feet was the place for a male disciple, but I’m not convinced and I don’t know enough about customs of the time to be certain. While that might have been true when a rabbi was teaching formally, was it true for a rabbi talking informally in someone’s own home? And is it true that ONLY official disciples sat a rabbi’s feet? Or did other people who happened to be in the area sit down too? I don’t know. Just for comparison (I don’t know how apt), in the great European universities of the middle ages, anyone around could listen to the lectures. They weren’t like classes and lectures today.

    Finally, the point of the story doesn’t make sense unless you realized that Mary wasn’t “supposed” to be sitting at Jesus’s feet, she was supposed to be getting the food. At least her sister thought so! So I guess she wasn’t an official disciple of Jesus then, was she?

    Another example of how scouring Scripture to prove a point often ends up defying common sense.

  21. Prof. Basto says:

    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

    October 28, 1995

    Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

    Responsum: In the affirmative.

    This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

    The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

    Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

    * * *

    So, this Bishop Gumbleton: is he denying the Church’s teaching on infalibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, taught by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, or
    is he denying the Church’s definitive formal judgement on the ontological impossibility of women priestly ordination (an ordination that, as a matter of unchangeable Divine law, the Church has no authority whatsoever to bestow), as proclaimed by the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, or both?

    Doesn’t this materialize the delictum gravius of heresy?

  22. Sedgwick says:

    I say this Gumbletonian proposal just doesn’t go far enough: animals should have the right to get married as well. In fact, they should even have the right to marry people if they want to. The Church must support cross-species unions! It’s a matter of social justice!

  23. Bornacatholic says:

    Dear Dorcas. I think your response is reflective of the cowardice of many Catholics to confront heresy directly.

    Fr Z’s humor is judged by you to be poisonous while, at the same time, you go to great lengths to try and minimise Gumbleton’s perversity.

    What Gumbleton did is not, as you put it, sad. It is scandalous and the BEST response to such liberal inanity is to engage in hearty laughter and, yes, mockery.

    I mean that is the best response unless one had authority to excommunicate him – which I’d have done LONG ago had I the authority to do have done so.

    Don’t forget that Gumbleton was a supporter of New Ways Ministry
    which undermined Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality and helped greased the skids so perverts could slither into seminaries, become ordained, and be set loose to pursue their prey – adolescent catholic males.

    You seem far more concerned with Fr Z’s apt use of humor than you are about a Prelate’s public attack on The Magisterium.

  24. raitchi2 says:

    Whenever I read posts along these lines, I feel as if I should enter the priesthood simply for the fact that even devoid of God’s graces and blessings, I through my own efforts alone could be a more orthodox and competent cleric than knuckleheads.

  25. Rob in Maine says:

    But Father, but Father!

    Doesn’t the Church already offer the Sacrements to the creatues of the soil by pouring the Precious Blood down the sacrarium? If the Precious Blood is good enough for Lowley Worm, it’s good enough for Huckle Cat!

    Deus conservate!

  26. Elly says:

    Wow, I could tell this was going to be a humorous post just from the title!

    I’m also glad that I’ve been educated in this subject by Father Z the past years because previously I believed that not ordaining women was something that could be theoretically changed.

  27. AnAmericanMother says:

    “The Devil, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.” – St. Thomas More

    “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.” – Martin Luther

  28. Leonius says:

    Which diocese did this take place in? Who was the Bishop responsible for allowing him to sow the seeds of schism among the flock entrusted to him?

  29. As some have already alluded, Bishop Gumbleton is correct in identifying Jesus as entirely counter-cultural in His approach to women. Yet in spite of this we are supposed to believe that He allowed the culture to constrain His true desire to ordain them? Nonsense.

  30. dans0622 says:


    That’s a bit strong. I think we can have legitimate differences of opinion on how to confront a particular heresy (and heretic) without being cowardly. “Dorcas” doesn’t think the method used here by Fr. Z is useful/productive. That’s understandable.

    I don’t think that “the BEST response to such liberal inanity is to engage in hearty laughter and, yes, mockery” is always true. This method of “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” is one possible, and at times, effective, response. At other times, a more scholarly, serious response is best. At other times, just a plain old rebuke.


  31. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Bornacatholic: Good response.

    Father Z, as I was reading your post, I shuddered as I hoped only those with a sense of humor would read it.

    The first step to humor is the recognition of incongruity. That’s the point here folks.

    Anyhooo, I sure wish women in church would observe silence and would be subject to authority. I long for an end to lay women in the Sanctuary, doing readings and as ministers of the Eucharist. Effects of action and words at Mass are much greater when the person has authority over the receivers. Priests are ordained with the power of preaching and authority over us. Women are not. We are so brainwashed by ‘power comes from below’ that we are almost past seeing anything but anger against the suggestion that individuals should know their place.

    SOME bishops need to familiarize themselves with this humbling concept as well.

  32. Magpie says:

    Would dogs sit, lie down, or stand to receive Holy Communion?

  33. irishgirl says:

    Amen, Tina in Ashburn!

  34. Henry Edwards says:

    In defense of those who took Father Z’s fine humor seriously, perhaps they are unaware that Bishop Gumbleton’s views have been widely known and roundly caricatured for several decades, at least since the infamous 1976 Call To Action in Detroit, which was inspired by the late Cardinal Deardon, who said he “had been changed by Vatican II,” the truth of this assertion likely epitomized by his appointment of Bishop Gumbleton as his auxiliary in Detroit at the age of 38 in 1968.

    So one really has to go over the top to get the attention of people who have been reading this stuff about Bishop Gumbleton for years and years, and simply are not surprised any more by anything said about or by him.

  35. Henry Edwards says:

    Magpie: Would dogs sit, lie down, or stand to receive Holy Communion?

    I don’t know about dogs, but a Call To Action back then said “After a good meal, I may sit or stand, and sometimes I lie down, but I absolutely never kneel.

  36. ipadre says:

    Very compelling arguments! For what, Martha served the meal. We do have parish dinners, there are also women who serve as ushers and collectors. Mary, sitting at the feet of Jesus – a good number of contemplative Nuns already do that. Very compelling – uggg!

    We have never been a Church that stands on one leg. There are two pillars that make up the one deposit of Faith. There is no compelling argument in Scripture supporting the ordination of women. And, since when do we go Sola Scriptura in the Catholic Church, that we would quote one verse to justify anything we want. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, two pillars, one deposit of faith!

  37. robtbrown says:

    I know it’s supposed to be funny. I’m giving my opinion that this was a crummy attempt at humour.
    Comment by Dorcas

    Right, and it seems there are people here who think yours was a crummy attempt at criticism.

  38. youngcatholicstl says:

    Fr. Z:

    Let me begin by stating that I agree Bishop Gumbleton needs to get his act together, I did see the humor in your post, and I’m glad you’re willing to stand up to Bishop Gumbleton. That said, I was disappointed by this post (and a few others of late).

    As Dorcas and a few others pointed out above, it seems as if you have resorted to taking petty pot shots at the liberals lately, rather than actually responding to their claims and assertions. As a reader of your blog for several years now, I feel this type of Rush Limbaugh-type response is beneath you. Mockery gets one nowhere with liberals (generally it only hardens their views), while intelligent responses will (at least on occassion) get a foot (ok, toe) in the door.

    As a younger Catholic constantly confronted by colleagues, friends, and classmates who subscribe to Bishop Gumbleton’s point of view, I need all of the help I can get in confronting these views. You are smarter than most conservatives out there, and we need intelligent responses from sources like you to truly respond to the conflicting world around us.

    I can turn to the blogs of many less intelligent, less well-reasoned conservatives if I merely want to mock and laugh at the liberals. That’s the easy way out. Hard hitting, intelligent, thorough responses are much harder to come-by.

    As Dan pointed out above, there are times that mockery is a good respons to the absurdity of liberal actions. While I won’t argue that the belief in women priests is ultimately absurd, we have too many uneducated brain-washed people (including Catholics) out there to respond with anything other than compassion, patience and education.

    Yes Bishop Gumbelton’s statements are a joke, yes “communion” to dogs is a joke, and yes, the Church of England (or at least what’s left of it) may be the biggest joke of all. But Fr. Z., until recently, your commentary was never a joke. It was always a means for the rest of us, many less-educated than yourself, to uphold the true Catholic faith and fight back against the ever-increasing liberal world we live in.

    I know I’ll get grilled by many of your readers for my response, and that’s fine. It’s not to say I didn’t like parts of your post (I really thought comparing the “conflicting” passages on women to the conflicting passages on the treatment of giving what is holy to animals was a great comparison), but most of it was made in mockery rather than in intelligent criticism. Bishop Gumbleton has the power to sway A LOT of people, and we need the Truth to sway them back.

  39. melafwife says:

    Amen Tina in Ashburn!
    What happended to Femininity, Modesty and Humility?
    Gone to the dogs

  40. Henry Edwards says:

    Bishop Gumbleton has the power to sway A LOT of people

    Seriously, youngcatholic, I doubt this. In my experience, people who can be swayed by the likes of Bp. Gumbleton have already been seriously swayed, long ago.

    And, thankfully, most of them are not a lot younger and sprier than him (at 80). Someone commented that the last Call to Action meeting–gathered to listen raptly to Sister Joan Chittister and share fond memories of their salad days when this kind of stuff seemed not only exciting but somewhat sensible–was strictly bald heads and blue-rinse, wall to wall.

  41. Supertradmum says:

    I am convinced that people who believe in womenpriests do not believe in the Incarnation. Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, within the Beatific Vision at all times, did not make any “mistakes” owing to cultural constraints.

    Of course, because of the goddess Bast and the great honor given to cats in Egypt (why makeup on certain persons’ eyes to this day looks like the eyes of my Puddyman), cats were already deified, making dogs more popular in Jewish culture, I would imagine. However, dogs were unclean, as well as cats, for eating.


    Some things simply cannot be argued, as they are too ridiculous. However, pointing your fellow students back to the Sacred Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers is a start.

  42. Supertradmom: However, pointing your fellow students back to the Sacred Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers is a start.

    But not in the way that H.E. Bp. Gumbleton did! That is the point of this entry, of course.

  43. TJerome says:

    “strictly bald heads and blue-rinse, wall to wall.” That’s a classic, Henry Edwards. You can also consider them “doubleknit dinosaurs.”

    By the way, I was totally unaware until today, that Bishop Gumbleton was a “scripture scholar” inspired by Divino Afflante Spiritu, no doubt. When did he have time to learn all of those ancient languages and the art of exegesis when he was so involved in “social action.” An amazing man.

  44. MrTipsNZ says:

    I’m surprised Bishop Gumbleton didn’t try and go “one up” and suggest we should only let female Bishops ordain animals to “tend to their flocks”…I’m sure there’s a historico-critical justification for that somewhere :-)

  45. boko fittleworth says:

    Bishop Fellay of the SSPX is in full, regular communion with the One Holy Catholic Church. Oh, wait, my bad. Bishop Gumbleton is the one in full, regular communion. Bishop Fellay is the one we’re warned to avoid. [Ironic, isn’t it?]

  46. JonM says:

    As the fathers of the worst era in Catholic dissent see that their masterwork is being swept away by the courageous young priests and dedicated laity, it is entirely expected for the former to lash out in a fury of open heresy.

    There is simply no discussion to have here: there can be no ordination of women. Generally, most children grow out of asking Mom and Dad for wings to fly like birds. Apparently for the aged Baby Boomers, maturity never can come before the theater of the absurd.

    I think it is clear that the strategy of Pope Benedict is to let those given to theological vanity fade away. I respect this as a prudential judgement. The dangers that remain of course are those scandalized by commentary from those such as His Excellency Gumbleton, as well as the chance that the best men are not being installed to replace the retirees (remember how Austria revolted against its new bishop?)

    I think more can be done to fix problems: some kind of top-down support for the Latin Mass, Chant, and the Rosary will really make waves in a good way. For example, if Pope Benedict were to issue a document establishing some kind of universal revitalization office, liberal parishes would promptly ignore it and get back to Gathering Themselves In, but parishes with conservative tendancies could pick up on it.

    What we have to realize is that we as humans naturally need leadership; we don’t create lasting movements spontaneously. No one will care if John Doe wants a Chant society. But if Father John Doe commissions a Chant society with monthly TLM by order of the Pope, that changes the stakes a bit.

    Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of these comments, those of a certain South African prelate, and others is that they are ‘in full, regular communion’ with Rome – yet the manifestly Catholic SSPX is still ‘irregular.’

  47. TravelerWithChrist says:

    I can’t resist Fr Z:

    What if the dog is a yellow lab that receives communion, then ventures down the wrong street… (see Fr’s previous post about yellow dog) what then?

    Yes, this is a serious issue, but if we don’t turn to humor periodically, we can all go crazy with all the negative activities in our nation and world.

  48. Traveler: Hmmm…. that is a poser. I suppose whatever is left should b burned and the ashed mixed with water, poured down the sacrarium.

  49. Gabriel Austin says:

    It does get tiresome [and pointless?] to hear such as Bp. Gumbleton repeat the same disproven points, and have them broadcast. It is a form of Chinese torture. The ground has been thoroughly covered by Manfred Hauke is his exhaustive book on the subject. Let the bishop write his own answer on the points raised by Hauke, then we can see.

    [A minor point which has led many women out of the CofE: how many women will confess to another woman?].

  50. Agnes says:

    You know, I’m offended by Gumbleton’s insinuation that Mary, sitting at Jesus’ feet, made her (inherently masculine) priestly. He’s saying that for women to be holy they have to do priestly (masculine) types of things. Where’s the dignity of the pew? I am more receptive to the Word under the pulpit of my pastor than I ever would be in it.

    There is a very good reason why priests run the sanctuary and their mothers run the coffee and donuts. One cannot survive without the other. Don’t mess with it.

    Gabriel – it is not a form of Chinese torture, but a form of Chinese OPERA! Pray for + Gumbleton, shake your head, and have a chuckle.

  51. THREEHEARTS says:

    Like Bishop Gumbleton I to can text proof. And remind him that Judas was a bishop too.
    Judas was a thief and keeper of the common purse……Judas went out and hanged himself…..Later still. “go and do thou likewise” Not even as silly as his text proofing

  52. AnAmericanMother says:

    Chinese opera . . . chinese torture . . . chinese cooking (poor yellow dog!)

    Yellow Dog Katy is very sad.

  53. Agnes says:

    But delicious with sweet and sour sauce!

Comments are closed.