Comments on: It’s not anchorlady, it’s anchorman. And that’s a fact.

By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Celeres Nexus Pro 2006-06-06

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:50:28 +0000

[…] GetReligion: June 2, 2006 Itâ€™s not anchorlady, itâ€™s anchorman. And thatâ€™s a fact. Great. This crap is coming to Pittsburgh on July 31. (tags: Catholic Christianity heresy cacodoxy priesthood gender) […]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: tjic.com » Blog Archive » female ‘priests’

tjic.com » Blog Archive » female ‘priests’ — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:27:33 +0000

[…] GetReligion has a good article on female Catholic ‘priests’.. The article is far better than anything I could have written on the topic, in that it conspicuously avoids untirely unfair and gratuitous phrases like “angry truck-driving lesbians”, “a level of cluelessness that requires attending divinity school”, and so forth. […]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Fr. Giryus

Fr. Giryus — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:03:56 +0000

First thing first: they are ‘Priestesses’!
Why do these feminists always avoid the word? You see, this isn’t about valuing women, this is about erasing the differences, creating an ‘effeminized’ environment, rather than genuinely masculine and feminine.

Absolut Rubbish

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Bob Koch

Bob Koch — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:08:41 +0000

The picture looks disturbingly like a Hidu goddess; arms everywhere….Perhaps appropriately so. Years ago, a very liberal Episcopal cleric related his experience in teaching in the diocisan theological school for late vocation types in the Diocese of Olympia in Washington State. He noted that as women began taking classes in the 70’s, men stopped. It wasn’t liberal women coming in and conservative men departing; there never were that many conservative types to start with. It just worked out that way, when it became an all woman thing, the guys left.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Micah Weedman

Micah Weedman — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:54:58 +0000

“The â€œmassâ€ as performance art and political theatre.”

umm, ever read von balthasar or william cavanuagh? the mass as performance art and political theatre is/are concept(s) that find much acceptance in widespread Catholic theology, actually.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Patrick O'Hannigan

Patrick O'Hannigan — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:46:41 +0000

“Roman Catholic woman priest” would seem to be an impossibility, given what the late John Paul II and the then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said about the church not having the authority to confirm women in the ordained priesthood (as opposed, of course, to the “priesthood of all believers.”) You GetReligion folk are normally attuned to this sort of thing— so shouldn’t “ordained” in this context be in quotes?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Will

Will — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:32:26 +0000

I recall that a poster on the “Independent Catholic” list (when I was still subscribing) relayed a report that Bishop Patricia Ford (presumably not the model) of the Servant Catholic Church (Not to be confused with the Google-returned “Christ the Servant Catholic Church”) was addressing a group of Marynoll Sisters who were carrying on about how they were so OPPRESSED because they can’t be ordained. Finally she could not stand any more and announced “You want to be ordained? Just step up and I’ll ordain you right now.” Did they step forward? Did they blazes. Evidently, what interests them is the assets and goodwill of the brand name Roman Catholicism Inc., and “other bodies which ordain women” will not do.

As for the issue of “validity”… groups in the shadowy world of “wandering bishops” (See Ansons BISHOPS AT LARGE and similar works) get downright obsessive about it, to the point of cognitive dissonance. I keep asking my own associates if they really think that that anyone who worries about such things will stick around us heretics long enough to find out whether their orders are “valid” or not before he flees screaming.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Marcus

Marcus — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:27:29 +0000

Mormons have a great deal in common with Catholics. One commonality is that we do not ordain women, either. Why? Primarily because it is God’s church, and until he says otherwise, those are the rules.

As it is, woman have a great deal of power and authority in the Church. My currently calling is Primary Pianist. This puts me directly under the Primary President, a woman. I get my direction from her, and the female Primary Chorister as well. I’ve got no problem with it.

When I lived in Michigan, we had a change in bishops. The old bishop was released and given a new calling as Nursery Leader in the Primary. That placed him under the authority of the female Primary President. In point of fact, I think he actually reported to one of her conselors, another woman who reported to the Primary President. This sort of thing happens all the time in the Church. Most members say, “How neat!”

We also have in common with the Catholics the problem of renegade members occasionally trying to force change by ordaining woman. Since it was not a proper ordaination, it is null and void. Since their ordaination was null and void, any rites and ordinances performed by the woman involved have no validity.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Tom Breen

Tom Breen — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:13:42 +0000

Maybe it’s only interesting to a theology dork like me, but the whole question of “valid but illicit” regarding the sacraments is fascinating. The female ordination movement isn’t the only group benefiting from odd decisions of bishops: the radical Catholic traditionalist underground is rife with priests and bishops tracing their ordination to one disgruntled bishop or another.

It might have made a worthwhile addition to the story to talk about what the church means when it says something is licit or illicit and valid or invalid.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: tmatt

tmatt — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:38:24 +0000

A quick note: We have two different issues here.

It is one thing to say that a church led by these women and, let’s say, openly gay Catholics and/or married priests is not a recognized Roman Catholic flock.

But they could, if they wished, start a new church — the American Catholic Church, Inc., or something like that. There are literally hundreds of Anglican and Orthodox and Old Catholic splinters around and they are legal, in the eyes of the state. Their weddings are legal, tax exemptions are sound, etc.

But that does not appear to be an issue in this story.

Wouldn’t be a bad thing for reporters to ask about, however.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:58:20 +0000

Wow. So this is their vision of the “liturgy” of the future..?? These people simply don’t get it. Colored toga like bags as vestments, a glass chalice, possibly leavened bread, a camera jammed up behind them to record the entire scene.. The “mass” as performance art and political theatre.

An expression of the “spirit” of Vatican II par excellence. No reverence for the Eucharist there. Liturgy is just all about us and our politics, right ladies? Or ought I say “Mothers”?? Mothers. Right on. Good stuff.

They should be glad they are incapable of consecrating the species. Else they would be just compounding their sacrilege.

By the way, speaking as a (cradle) Catholic, it’s good to have you aboard the barque Paul. I second everything you say.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Scott Allen

Scott Allen — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:05:52 +0000

Deborah, your comments all make sense. I just hope that we primarily focus on what is faithful to the Word, instead of how well it is received by any particular demographic (men, women, jews, gentiles, heterosexual, homosexual, rich, poor, etc.). While I worry about doing the “popular” thing just because it is perceived to be more appropriate (and ironically, how many liberal changes were made with the argument that “more people will feel welcome here” and subsequently reduced actual attendance due to compromise with Scripture?), I am mindful of Christ’s command not to hinder little ones from coming to Him (Matt 18:6) and examples like Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Paul Druce

Paul Druce — Wed, 31 May 2006 23:03:53 +0000

Are the baptisms they perform automatically invalid in the eyes of the Church? And will they be allowed to perform weddings by the state as â€œclergyâ€ since the validity of their ordinations is being denied by their Church?

A valid baptism can be performed by anyone, even an atheist, so long as it is Trinitarian and intends, at least implicitly, to do what the Church does in baptism. If two Catholics were to attempt marriage at a ceremony officiated by these “priestesses” the Church would not recognize their marriage as valid.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Wed, 31 May 2006 22:55:34 +0000

I’m a cradle Catholic and used to be in the pro-female ordination camp, a line of thinking that is illustrated quite nicely by Susan’s comment.

However, when I started reading up on what the Church teaches on this subject and why, I found that (much to my surprise!) it actually makes a lot of sense. It’s simply very difficult for we modern women to accept, but this is not about power. (This is true regardless of how many male clergy have abused their power over the centuries.) It’s also interesting to read about the early Church (books like the Rise of Christianity)…women were the ones pushing Christianity in the very beginning in part because it afforded them equal dignity and offered a very attractive alternative to a culture that practiced infanticide, etc.

A priest is not someone who DOES something, a priest is someone who IS something, namely, an icon of Christ in the world. There is a big difference between rights and gifts. Ordination is not a right, it is a gift. Women have been given gifts from God that are not available to men (childbirth springs to mind).

Beyond these enduring truths (and that is what they are), there are plenty of practical reasons why ordaining women to be Catholic priests is not a good idea, and Paul has hit upon some of them. It’s true that women are already completely immersed in parish life and administration. If they were to assume the “father” role in a parish, I think there would be more than a few guys who would simply pack it in because of overwhelming “feminization.” Generally speaking, men seem to need the strong male role models when it comes to sprituality. Our very orthodox, “regular guy” pastor started up a parish softball team and four of the guys ended up joining RCIA.

Women were at the foot of the Cross until the very end, and a woman (Mary Magdalene) was the first to go to Christ’s tomb and proclaim the Good News. It’s worth thinking about.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Deborah

Deborah — Wed, 31 May 2006 22:40:56 +0000

“… if I may generalize, women value socializing. Men are instinctively competitive, more ideological, and less willing to compromise.”

I think, to put a finer point on it, Scott, the difference you’re reaching for here is focusing on relative closeness of relationship is more a “feminine” trait, while focusing on the hierarchical aspect of relationship (who’s above whom - the “competitive” aspect) is a more “masculine” trait. (It’s dicey to do the “men are” and “women are” thing too literally, since most people have a mix of masculine and feminine traits.)

Both are valid perspectives, but “named leadership” would be more important to the one valuing hierarchy, while the more functional and relational aspects of service would be more important to the one valuing closeness and intimacy of relationship. Such would partially explain why most of the hands-on work in churches (like teaching Sunday School) *tends* to be done by women.

I disagree with Scott’s point that the question of how leadership affects male church participation is merely a “‘flip side’ of a feminist political approach.” I think Scripture’s position on male leadership reflects (and respects) the reality of how men and women in a fallen world really interact.

Like or Dislike: 0 0