Spectacular B as in B, S as in S

Today in the reading for St. Venerable Bede, we heard from St. Paul to Timothy:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Fr. James Martin, homosexualist and Jesuit, Oooos and Ahhhs over a book by Card. Zuppi which claims that no one chooses their orientation.  And yet it remains that people DO have choices.

This is Zuppi’s third work on a book promoting homosexuality.  I’m sensing a pattern.

Then the same Jesuit homosexualist was aflutter about a new book exploring the possibility of blessing same-sex unions commissioned by the Archdiocese of Salzburg.

Down down down into the rabbit hole of myths.

Also, Card. Marx stated that women’s ordination is off the table for now.  Coincidentally, according to CNA in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising last year, 10,744 Catholics formally withdrew from the Church in 2019. It noted that this was a fifth higher than in 2018, when 8,995 people left.

Today I stumble across this.  Take in the jargon, the scrambled thought, the sheer unhinged fantasy of this verbiage.  This is how the liberal left in the Church think.

Here is the extract:

” I Name Myself in Power ” : The Roman Catholic Womenpriests and the Performance of Relational Authority

by Claire Maria Chambers (Performance Studies, Liturgy, Feminist Theology, Gender and religion (Women s Studies))  My emphases and comments.

By focusing on the liturgies and spiritual narratives of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests, this article explores the performance of the authority of women [cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35] in ways that challenge institutional hierarchy and affirm inclusivity and equality, but still maintain forms of power. The Womenpriests are a radical reform movement internal [lie] to the Roman Catholic Church committed to a progressive politics of inclusion. They challenge normative power relations by practising ritual ordination of women priests in the full line of apostolic succession [lie]. Their performance of priesthood names the individual and the community as sources of power in a manner that creates what the author calls “relational authority.”  [This takes the dreadful errors of Schillebeeckx way beyond crazy.] Relational authority regards dwelling with others and the recognition of inherent, human worth as sources of meaning that are creative and co-creative.  [?!?  What does that even mean?] This concept responds to existing theories that consider the social dimension of participation, rather than the individual viewer or actor, in collaborative performance. The article reflects on the relationship between performance theory and the theological dimensions of Christic representation and interrogates feminist theology for new forms of performative signification. The performance of priesthood by women in the Roman Catholic Church is [an illusion] an interstice of new possibilities for the exchange of authority and power, and an example of performance that, by means of “dwelling with,” opens new paradigms for performance theory beyond [beyooooond!] being, doing, and its permutations through showing and explaining. Rather than authority stemming from being and doing, the Womenpriests demonstrate authority that issues from knowing (wisdom) and relating.

What a load of B as in B, S as in S.

This is what goes on inside the heads of proponents of the ordination of women, including to the diaconate.

“I name myself in power”

Non serviam

I’m reminded of Zuhlio’s song, Lady Tambourine Priest

Then take me disappearin’ through your schism and dissent,
We’ve cast off all pretense, we finally have a voice,
In Catholics for Free Choice, who cares what bishops teach,
We’re far beyond the reach of Christ’s own Vicar,
Yes we dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free,
Goodbye to sanity, in our labyrinths of pride,
“Non serviam!” we’ve cried, all gender roles have died,
We’ve forgotten our Creator and humility.

The Official Parodohymnodist hit it on the head.

Pray, friends.  It’s CRAZY out there!

Pray and work for the restoration of sanity in the Church through a liturgical renewal centered especially the reclamation of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Meanwhile, regarding performance and challenging hierarchical models in new paradigms of relatedness and … relating … HERE

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in B as in B. S as in S., Deaconettes, Liberals, Parody Songs, Pò sì jiù, You must be joking! and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. SemperServusDei says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
    – Sir Walter Scott

  2. Joy1985 says:

    I DO pray Father. Our Church is in so much need. Lord please help us as Catholics to do your will and help your Church.

  3. Adelle Cecilia says:

    Such a disgusting mess.

    Fr. Z, I do have a question re: “Roman Catholic.” [Ummmm…. under this post?]
    Isn’t that term a misnomer?

    From Radio Replies by Frs. Rumble & Carthy:
    250. If it is “Catholic” and “Roman” why do you refuse to call it the “Roman Catholic Church”?
    Because the compound title is a very different thing from applying the two terms separately to the Church, which is Catholic because universal and Roman because it has its supreme authority vested in the See of Rome. Also the compound title is self-contradictory. Catholic means universal. To prefix the word Roman as limiting Catholic would mean the “not-universal universal Church!” Thirdly, the Catholic Church has expressly rejected the expression “Roman Catholic” as a right description of itself. Finally, Protestants invented the term “Roman Catholics” in order to pretend that there were other kinds of Catholics. It would be wrong to confirm them in that mistake.

    253. How did the term “Roman Catholic” arise?
    The High-Church Anglican Bishop W. H. Frere explains it as follows in the “Dictionary of English Church History.” When, after the death of Mary Tudor, the break with Rome was renewed in England under Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) it became necessary to find some name for those who remained loyal to the Pope and refused to accept the new English Church. At first they were called “Recusants.” They themselves spoke of themselves as “Catholics,” and of all others as “heretics.” The “heretics” spoke of themselves as “Protestants” and of Catholics as “Papists.” Many Anglicans, however, denied that they had forfeited their right to the title “Catholic,” and they adopted the terms “Romish” and “Roman” as a qualifying adjective suitable for the recusant Catholics. So it was in Elizabethan times that Anglicans invented the expression “Roman Catholic.” In reality, of course, the Catholics of England remained just as they had ever been, one with the Catholics of France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and other countries on the Continent, whom no one thought of except simply as Catholics.
    (More here: http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-4.php?t=21)

  4. That screed by Chambers is almost as unreadable as Finnegan’s Wake (though one is literature and the other is bird cage liner….).

    Does it have to be a given that overeducated pretenders end up sounding like they swallowed a thesaurus? Obfuscation is NOT the work of one who actually wishes that the real agenda is revealed.

  5. Gaetano says:

    “Naming one’s self in power” is a fancy name for magical-thinking and self-delusion.

    As for “looking at people as God looks are them,” I’ve seen how homosexuals treat one another. Very little of it is godly.

    Indeed, much of it involves reducing a person to their sex organs, and only for as long as they are deemed attractive, desirable & available.

  6. Mike_in_Kenner says:

    That crazy academic jargon reminds me of a favorite Calvin and Hobbes cartoon from years ago. Calvin writes a book report called “The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes.”

    [For Calvin and Hobbles reference…]

  7. matt from az says:

    Is there anyway to politely tell these prelates and priests that 1968 called and wants its Revolution back?

    In the effort to be relevant, these guys are completely irrelevant. As the kids say dismissively these days, “OK, Boomer.”

  8. Mariana2 says:

    All I could think of while reading this rubbish was “fire burn and cauldron bubble.”

  9. jflare29 says:

    I am suddenly reminded of an occasion from years ago. While on temporary duty, I had gone with a colleague to attend a pow-wow. Because during my teens my local Boy Scout council actually had an older indian gentlemen, I had at least a rough idea of what an indian’s ceremonial dress should look like and the sort of environment appropriate to tribal ritual. …I didn’t see anything that looked very authentic. Ceremonial garb tended to be plastic “bones”, streamer “feathers” (like what might be used for decorating for high school Prom), and…Pepsi signs (I assume for the numbers on the signs). They conducted this event…in a parking lot with bleachers surrounding the dance area. I will assume the dance, at least, was authentic. ..Though I would question whether any authentic tribal event ever had a contest for dancers.
    Suffice to say, I was NOT impressed.
    If we want to evangelize well as Catholics, we need to cease and desist with all the “inculturation” nonsense. Nobody seems to be very impressed. Neither they whom we might seek to reach, nor ourselves.

  10. JonPatrick says:

    Two things that strike me about this extract: the multiple uses of the word “power” and its association with individuals, and the absence of any mention of God. It seems that instead of the all powerful God instead we have power coming from individuals which sounds a bit like we are headed towards pantheism here.

  11. Imrahil says:

    To the question the dear Adelle Cecilia brought up, I’d say:

    1. Of course, the term was originally brought up by Protestants, and, in Germany at least (where Luther was honest enough to actually cut “Catholic” out of the Apostle’s Creed), only insisted on by those called “Old Catholics”, and of course (go figure) sometimes by progressive Catholics. Nevertheless is is true; we are Catholic, and all Catholics are in a manner Romans. Hence, we’re Roman Catholic.

    2. I’ve never thought about the implication of “non-universal universal Church”, but now I’ve seen it written down, it looks like a considerable surplus benefit to find so nice an analogon to the incarnational principle in one’s own denominational identifier.

    3. I personally think that even if I were not Catholic, that Catholics would make a favorable impression (as do, I guess and in this respect, Mormons) on me by saying that they’re Catholic, period; rather unlike your usual Protestant charismatic street evangelization band who’ll insist for fifteen minutes that they’re Christians and only Christians until you have successfully wormed out of them what denomination they actually belong to. It is but a slight extension of that principle to, if one ever does encounter an Anglo-Catholic, simply condescend jovially to putting the (in itself not untrue) identifier “Roman” before the “Catholic”.

  12. Isn’t this “power” thing basically magic and witchcraft? Isn’t “power” the point of practicing occultism?

    It is sobering to reflect that, in a time when we are clearly undergoing a divine chastisement, so many of us are doubling down on the behaviors that have led to chastisement.

  13. Kathleen10 says:

    In days when Catholic Cardinals write series of books favorable to homosexuality, and hardly anyone notices or cares, the people need to pray more earnestly than they have before, and stay as close to Christ as they possibly can.

  14. TRW says:

    “I Name Myself In Power”. That’s exactly what my two-year-old decrees before throwing a temper tantrum.

Comments are closed.