Fishwrap attacks Francis AGAIN in the matter of women’s ordination

I have written before that the ordination of women is the flagship issue for liberals.

So long as Pope Francis won’t change Church “policy”, he will remain in their dog house.

Some conservatives frown when the Pope gets out over his skiis in matters of economics, but liberals attack Francis when he upholds defined faith and morals.

Jamie Manson at the Fishwrap, lesbian activist, tutored at Yale by Margaret Farley (of the CDF Notification), favored speaker of the LCWR, attacks Francis for editors this time.

The good thing about Miss Mansons’ piece is that she totalizes her analysis of Pope Francis: Francis can’t be wrong about gender and right about anything else. Obviously NSR disagrees with that judgment!

On lack of vocations, Francis’ diagnosis comes up short

Like many who care passionately about a fully inclusive priesthood in the Catholic church, I read paragraph 104 of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium with deep sadness, though not surprise.  [Remember when I wrote that Francis had created a split on the left?  Remember also that Sr. Maureen Fiedler already attacked Francis on this point … as the surrogate for the NSR.  The editors work thought surrogates.]

“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion,” Francis wrote, “but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.” [For true liberals, priesthood is about power, nothing less.  That is one reason why the ordination of women is a liberal flagship issue.]

“It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power ‘we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness,’ ” the document continues. “The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all.

“The configuration of the priest to Christ the head — namely, as the principal source of grace — does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others.”

[And now the Popette speaketh…] Much as Francis would like to erase the dynamic of domination from the priesthood, his teaching will remain unrealistic if he continues to reinforce an unjust power structure [DING!  Say da magic woid, win a hundred dahlahs!] in which only celibate males are permitted to consecrate the Eucharist.


Even as Francis perpetuates the same rigid restrictions on who may and may not answer God’s calling to the priesthood, just three paragraphs later, in section 107, he goes on to blame the “dearth of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life” on “a lack of contagious apostolic fervour in communities which results in a cooling of enthusiasm and attractiveness.” []

Apparently for the pope, “vocations” are limited to the number of people in Roman Catholic seminaries or novitiate programs. He seems unaware that if he were to look into divinity schools and graduate programs in theology and ministerial formation, he would find no lack of Catholic young adults with a fervent desire to devote themselves fully to serving the church. [They can’t do so as priests.  Too bad, Jamie.]


Read the rest there, if you can stand it.  You’ll find a lot of whining about unfairness and an exaltation of lesbianism.

Watch for her points that “real” men don’t join seminaries as long as “real women” aren’t allowed in priesthood.  No, really.

I’ll leave you with this:

IF… IF Jamie were right about His Holiness’ blindness concerning women, then it must also be that he can’t be trusted when it comes to any other aspects of “justice”.

Therefore, how can NSR agree with Miss Manson?

But will our Jamie succeed in convincing others that she’s right?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Just Too Cool, Liberals, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. torch621 says:

    Bell, book and candle needs to be brought back.

  2. JordanH says:

    How can they seriously distance themselves from Jamie Manson? She’s their Book’s Editor and they offer to send you alerts whenever she posts an editorial. Perhaps they do that for all editorialists, but the offer implies that more editorials are certainly forthcoming.

  3. Scott W. says:

    Presumably this all of this was written on John “You knuckle-dragging Taliban Catholics need to be more charitable” Allen’s watch. When are people going to stop pretending he’s the lone voice of reason when his silent complicity endorses stuff like this? [Well… that was weird.]

  4. Suburbanbanshee says:

    I wasn’t aware that Mr. Allen owned, operated, or edited the publication, unless this is some strange new meaning of the word “reporter” or “columnist.”

  5. McCall1981 says:

    It’s strangly comforting to read the NcR critcizing the Pope.

    The part where Francis said the Priesthood isn’t about power, then Jamie immediately says it’s about power sounds like something Eye on the Tiber would write as a joke. Sounds like Jamie is becoming a parody of herself.

  6. Kathleen10 says:

    I can only hope Ms. Manson somehow reads this. Probably not, but it’s possible.

    Ms. Manson, as a woman, your views don’t represent mine. Your views don’t represent anyone I even know. We have on our side solid reasoning for the argument that you are the outlier.
    In a culture where women were invisible or chattel, Jesus demonstrated an inclusion of women that gave us the clear right to full participation in His church and kingdom. But you are pursuing something that Christ clearly never intended and so you will not attain it. In addition to the clear example of Jesus selecting male apostles only, there is the matter of Catholic tradition. Don’t laugh. It still matters. Based on these facts I have much more standing to say you will not be successful than you have reason to hope you will.
    Finally, you should know that even if you were to open that door just a little, there would be millions of people, many, many women included, who would be vehemently opposed to your scheme, and would voice opposition that you cannot imagine. We would win. You are whistling into the wind, and you should find something productive to do with your time.

  7. Dan says:

    It bewilders me that advocates for this sort of thing both denounce and seek the approval of said “unjust power structure.” Perhaps it can be a point of hope – if they approve of Francis’ treatment of economic issues, maybe they will come around on other things as well.

  8. Supertradmum says:

    This is getting boring-beating on the same, old drum. Too bad about the name Catholic attached to this rag. I think that one of the first lesbian couples married in Boston were two Episcopalian priestesses-connections?

  9. MikeToo says:

    I would like to understand one thing from the exhortation. If Pope Francis curtails the operations of the CDF and delegates doctrinal authority to local bishops and/or bishop conferences, then what would happen if a local bishop decides to ordain women or some such action? [Can’t happen.]

  10. TNCath says:

    Perhaps Miss Manson would find solace in the Episcopal church where its head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is more a figurehead for the Anglican “Communion,” with whom its members can agree, disagree, or ignore at will.

  11. Nan says:

    This is getting old. They’ve been whining about women’s inability to become priests at least since the 70’s.

  12. The Drifter says:

    How can one not love these revolutionary wannabees, in reality ecclesiastical petit burgeois?

  13. jm says:

    IF Jamie were right about His Holiness’ blindness concerning women, then it must also be that he can’t be trusted when it comes to any other aspects of “justice”.

    Sorry Fr Z. but this makes no sense. You might as well say, if the POpe can be off on his economics, he can also be off on his church administrative policy… The problem remains that we keep getting these leaders who simply are not consistently Catholic but instead are Catholic-crossed-with-Social Activism-as “Evangelization.” The Popes remain policy-fixated, and all the vaunted talk changes little on the ground as the allow all sorts of crazy ideas. Hence Scott W’s comment, that you dismiss as “weird,” is on the money. You can’t allow such wide-ranging dissent, and then expect agreement when you get hardline. The fact you have to huzzah! about a single Australian excommunication, over and over again… Which has more impact, a single excommunication on a continent far away, or Allen, week after week, giving the NCR credibility?

  14. Priam1184 says:

    @jm You’re right I think. It’s all about the bishops really. The pope can say and do the greatest things in the world, we could have a reappearance of someone like I don’t know Benedict XIV, St. Pius V, Innocent III, St. Peter himself, pick your favorite pope, and it wouldn’t matter much as long as so many bishops continued to do whatever they could to delay, deny, avoid, and obfuscate what the Holy Father is doing. And that is what we have now and that is why things do not change. It takes a long time to appoint new bishops, and there is also no short supply of obstacles in the way of a Pope who would wish to reform the episcopate. It is a task we should acknowledge to be entirely beyond human means, if we are honest with ourselves, and that is why we need to pray all the more fervently: Veni Sancte Spiritus!

  15. avecrux says:

    Sexual distinction is so fundamental that if one does not accept or understand it (lesbian activist), lots of other dominoes fall. A good Jesuit Priest I knew in college once said in a homily “women can’t be Priests because the Church is not a lesbian”…. Jamie wouldn’t see that.

  16. wmeyer says:

    A good Jesuit Priest I knew in college once said in a homily “women can’t be Priests because the Church is not a lesbian”…

    Jamie would likely fall victim to a fit of apoplexy.

  17. Pingback: René de La Tour du Pin -

  18. BLB Oregon says:

    There are not a few people taking classes in religion whose idea of “serving the Church” is to immediately and radically change it around by the strenuous application of their own “unique insight” and “academic brilliance”. IOW, it should not by any means be assumed that these students the author refers to would be suitable candidates for the priesthood even if they were all magically changed into confirmed Catholic males willing to take on a life of celibacy in order to present themselves as candidates. It takes more than celibacy, a Y chromosome, and a pulse to make a priest.

  19. JARay says:

    I find it amusing, none the less, that lesbian wannabees have to take names like “Jamie”. What’s wrong with Priscilla or Cinderella? I’m sure that the Apostle James, brother of the Lord, would not want a lesbian calling herself after him.

Comments are closed.