Is there something about non-Roman Catholic churches ordaining women that makes all journalism skills fly out the window? I’m pretty sure there is some ridiculously high correlation between ordinations of women who are not Roman Catholic and poorly written stories about said ordinations. Here’s yet another example, this one from the Arizona Republic: “Catholic church ordains woman as priest.”
At some point in the week, the paper added the word “independent” to the headline. Unfortunately, they didn’t fix the story, which uses the word “Catholic” some two dozen times, as well. Here’s how it begins:
A woman was ordained as a Catholic priest in the Valley on Saturday in the kind of ceremony the Vatican recently condemned as one of the church’s most serious crimes.
Oh wow. So this isn’t any of that typical ordination of non-Roman Catholics. If this is the kind of ceremony the Vatican condemned, it must mean that it was done by actual Roman Catholics, right? Well let’s go to paragraph nine:
[Diocese of Phoenix spokesman Rob] DeFrancesco said independent churches “are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and should not identify themselves as Catholic” because of potential confusion. He had no comment on Meyer’s participation.
Elsewhere, the church has excommunicated the person ordained and those who took part in the ordination. But neither [Elaine] Groppenbacher nor [Sue] Ringler said she considered herself subject to the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore could not be excommunicated.
OK, then. So what’s the point of the story, exactly? I mean, I’m also curious about the “Bishop Peter Hickman of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, one of several liberal Catholic offshoots in the Valley” who ordained the women. Was he ordained a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church? The topic isn’t even broached.
It’s just a deeply unserious story. Even the caption, which says Groppenbacher is the fourth woman to be ordained as a priest in the Valley, is unclear. Are we just talking about women who are part of independent Catholic churches or are we including female priests in other church bodies, such as The Episcopal Church? There’s another part of the story that says Sue Ringler and her parish were “confirmed … as part of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion.” I’m not quite sure what that means but here’s some more great news writing:
“We have more problems with the church than just its treatment of women,” Ringler said.
Among those issues are lay participation, active membership for gay and lesbian members, and openness on women’s health concerns, notably birth control and abortion. The churches typically invite everyone to take communion, church members or not.
Wha-hunh? Um, there is just so much here, so much here. I have no idea at all what “issue” “lay participation” is. Reporters have to get specific about this. How, precisely, do they differ on “lay participation.” And is there not “active” membership for Catholics with same-sex attraction? That would be news to my Catholic friends who identify as same-sex attracted. But really, “openness on women’s health concerns”? Openness? That’s a perfectly fine way for a public relations shop of an independent church to characterize a position. But reporters need to cut through the euphemisms and deliver the actual news.
These stories are as predictable as they are poorly written. I’m all for writing up the ordinations of folks. Fact is, it might be nice to see some write-ups of the ordinations of people who are not females affiliated with “Catholic” churches. The tendency for only these ordinations get written up paints a really distorted picture of religious life in America.
Seriously, if I only got my news from the mainstream media, I’d assume that all ordinations in the last 10 years were of transgendered individuals, gays, lesbians, dual-religionists, and females in non-Roman Catholic churches. Let’s spread our wings a bit.
 | Posted at 12:59 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (52) |
September 5, 2010, at 1:47 pm
These stories are predictable because all the actors and motivations in them are predictable. I have been a journalist for almost two decades. Seen it over and over. (And I’m not Catholic.) Most journalists distrust and dislike institutions, especially older and/or nondemocratic ones. As the Fourth Estate, it’s in the news media DNA to write about people sticking it to “the Man” — in this case, the Catholic Church, figuratively and literally.
In comes a tip that an “ordination” is taking place. Editor and/or reporter sees a chance to write what they see as a man-bites-dog story that also somehow champions the oppressed. Reporter speaks at length to the group sponsoring the ordination, members of which come off as very sympathetic and well-meaning good-guys, who often supply a detailed but misleading press release. Reporter frames the story with that group in highly sympathetic light, as protagonist. With such framing, the official Catholic hierarchy’s voice(s) is automatically that of the oppressor, who already is seen as evil in the eyes of many newsrooms for a variety of reasons. Mix in a dollop of misunderstanding about what ordination actually is in Catholicism vs. other denominations.
If the reporter does truly explore the issue, does enough extra research, s/he finds out that these ordinations aren’t official, which takes the interesting sheen off them — they begin to simply resemble little, self-centered rebellions, which are far less newsworthy than an actual against-the-rules-but-somehow-official Roman Catholic ordination would be. To retain the story’s “sexiness” on the daily story budget, it’s best not to delve too deeply into the real details of what’s going on.
End result is a stream of these tiresome stories, largely shaped by the predictable framing and motivations of the media who write, edit, budget and print them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
September 5, 2010, at 1:48 pm
Just as interesting would be a survey of what these women are doing, of a pastoral nature or otherwise, five years (let us say) later. For that matter, how are the churches that ordained them involved with the woes of their communities? Rather than get so far into “they say they’re priests but the diocese says not” weeds, show us if they are acting as priests and as churches, or not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
September 5, 2010, at 2:05 pm
Do the Eastern Orthodox have these stories to deal with? If so why not. Is it because there is no Orthodox Splinter groups that say abortion is a personal matter , have same sex marraige, and ordain women? Or is because the media does not care?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 2:58 pm
jh,
I would guess it is because most Orthodox splinter groups tend to be ultra-conservative (I recall reading a story recently about an Old Believer parish that decided it would no longer require the congregation to come in 19th C. peasant dress).
Also, the Orthodox Church tends to be much more under the radar in general.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 3:54 pm
Thought this was interesting regarding the “bishop”:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/04/local/me-communion4
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 4:00 pm
From Drew’s story:
“Marriage and children aren’t the only things separating Hickman from nearly all Roman Catholic clergy.”
Yeah, there’s that whole not being a Catholic priest thing, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 4:38 pm
Part of the problem is that sensationalism sells, but most media personnel will not admit that frequently they are just playing to the crowd to make a buck.
There is a fine large Evangelical seminary and college(Gordon College) near my home. It must have a graduation ceremony or ordination ceremony of some sort. But I have never seen any coverage of any sort in the local media. Probably no controversy, no excitement, no scandal=no story.
A great challenge for the media is for it to find a way to report on non-controversial events in an interesting and entertaining manner that will attract readers or listeners
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 4:38 pm
And of course, Eastern churches already have “bearded and wedded clergy”, spoiling that angle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 4:54 pm
I wonder if these stories would be taken so seriously if it weren’t the religion arena? If someone shows up in a Yankees jersey with Lou Gehrig’s number, would the sports press take him as seriously as the dimbulbs on the religion beat take these ladies? Can he say he’s *really* a Yankee, that they have no business keeping him out of the dugout? Probably it would cause outrage because that game is taken much more seriously than any religion you can name. Thus the standards (minimal though they be) are higher for sports reporters than for ones who address religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 5:50 pm
I would really like to hear some of these people explain just what it is that they insist makes them “Catholic” rather than “Protestant”. Is it “smells and bells”? Don’t Mormons have plenty of that? Is it obsessive concern with the “validity” of their lines of succession? Is it saying “mass” instead of “communion”?
Every time I have asked someone that, I have been met with earsplitting silence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 5:55 pm
C.L.U.E.L.E.S.S.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
September 5, 2010, at 7:40 pm
I believe Bp Hickman was ordained an RC priest—through regular channels—and later received episcopal consecration from a branch of the Liberal Catholic Church, which derives its claim to apostolic succession from the Old Catholic Church. This seems to be a very common scenario in so-called “Independent Catholic” churches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 9:02 pm
While these stories have problems, I wonder whether you are underestimating the average reader’s understanding of the Catholic church. The minute someone reads woman ordained in Catholic church, 99% of readers are going to know that doesn’t jibe with Vatican dictates and we are talking about something unusual. So the use of “Catholic” in describing these women who consider themselves “Catholic” is understood as outside the rules of the church.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 10:43 pm
I really appreciate #1, Cyrus, reviewing the process by which silliness like this occurs. I would only add that us non-journalist types tend to regard the media as an institution to distrust and dislike among others. Stories like this don’t help that perception.
#10 Will - I used to work with a guy who billed himself as a Catholic priest. I even assisted at an Ash Wed. Mass and received Communion from him. Turns out he was a hot dog in the Ecumenical Catholic Church, founded the local parish, and also extremely vague about what was really “Catholic” about it all. If memory serves, it was something about a “Catholic Ethos” or “Culture” or something like that. I asked straight out once if he were in Communion with the local Catholic bishop and he replied “well, he thinks so”.
Which is to say: these people may be feeding reporters malarkey and the reporters don’t have the knowledge base (or time or the interest, per #1) to sort it all out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 10:48 pm
Jeffrey @#13, I hope you will not be offended if I consider you an optimist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 10:52 pm
So the use of “Catholic” in describing these women who consider themselves “Catholic” is understood as outside the rules of the church.
Well, yes, that’s the problem, since the women come off as being inside the Church, but outside her rules. As to the knowledge base of the general readership, consider this poll:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/15202
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 5, 2010, at 11:12 pm
Actually I haven’t seen a lot in the mainstream media about women being ordained in the RC church. A colleague has been ordained, and I know about some of this stuff because I’m interested, but it hasn’t really played big in mainstream jouralism, including religious journalism, either on paper on on the internet.
My question is, why is this such a big deal. And please let me be clear: I’m NOT asking why is this a bigger deal than social justice, RC priests abusing young boys, yada-yada-yada. I’m asking why is this a bigger deal than priests who don’t believe in God and think that laypeople who do are naive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 2:56 am
H.E., there are two issues here, one being the validity of the sacraments and the other the media taking an advocacy role in a controversial issue. On the sacramental issue, you can’t toy with the validity of the sacraments based on how you feel things should be. Because of the Catholic understanding of the sacraments and grace, you need to be 100% certain that the sacraments will remain valid because eternal souls are at stake. Near certainty or probability are not enough, not for me at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 3:07 am
The lamestream media oftentimes has hostile ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 4:38 am
bob,
“I wonder if these stories would be taken so seriously if it weren’t the religion arena?”
Probably not, as for the past two centuries, “religion” (as if it were a unified entity) has been portrayed as being subjective, personal, emotional where every one can do or think what he likes with no regard to substance or consistency. The few religious groups that still stick to consistency then always get a bad rap.
It is not that today’s people are less seriously religious, they simply put their faith in other things, which is why I think your Yankess comparison very apt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 4:45 am
Jeffrey,
“While these stories have problems, I wonder whether you are underestimating the average reader’s understanding of the Catholic church. The minute someone reads woman ordained in Catholic church, 99% of readers are going to know that doesn’t jibe with Vatican dictates”
Optimist or not, you are missing the point. It is not that ordaining women violates ecclestical law (not dictates of the “Vatican”!) - articles are usually overly clear about that.
The point is that we are talking about a non-(Roman-) Catholic group ordaining women. Why bring the RCC into this story? Why not report on all the other hundreds non-RCC denominations ordaining women?
Fact is that these “reporters” actually don’t care about women priests apart from clubbering the RCC with them. Just like the Old Catholic Church in some cases was used post-1870 as a means to oppress and harass the RCC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 4:49 am
H.E.,
do you mean why is it a big deal for the (R)CC not to ordain women, or why is it a big deal for her to enforce her rules within her own compound, or why is it such a big deal for the media, or why is it such a big deal to activists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 5:28 am
Neither. I mean why, of all the complaints religious believers may legitimately have about the beliefs and behavior of some activists in the RC church, and more importantly the liberal elite that run mainline protestant denominations, it’s the role of women that has become the touchstone of orthodoxy and the big deal.
There are lots of clergy and religious writers who don’t believe in God, many of whom believe that anyone who does is stupid. Consider Bishop Spong who stated publicly that theism was impossible for educated people in the 21st century. Or Karen Armstrong, representing legions of religious leaders who don’t believe God exists but religious noises which they cash out as calls for compassion and general niceness.
I’m aware of the rationale for not ordaining women as regards the validity of sacraments. But remember that one of the requirements for validity is intention—minimally the intention to “do what the Church does.” It’s pretty clear to me that quite a number of clergy don’t have that intention because they believe that what the Church has been doing in the past, on the assumption that there was a God, was wrong-headed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 6:01 am
H.E.,
No, it is not about “the beliefs and behavior of some activists in the RC church” but about activistis outside of it.
Why
“it’s the role of women that has become the touchstone of orthodoxy and the big deal”?
It has not. Your examples are pointless, as
1. a priest openly declaring his disbelief in God would be out in a minute (at least in the Catholic Church - Spong is no good example as he was in the ECUSA, which actually does not disallow female “priests”. Who’s K. Armstrong and how is she relevant?)
2. thus far the bash-the-church-media is not yet cheeky enough to demand that a Catholic priest should be allowed to be an atheist (though they are approaching that, demanding that individuals that disagree with basically every Catholic tenet and prefer to speak of the church with nothing but hatred should of course be allowed to minister for and get paid by said church).
(3. And why this fixation with the mere belief in God’s existence, as if that were enough or even meaningful?)
4. Female ordination is just an example of persons claiming a desire to be Catholic priest without actually being fully Catholic in the first place.
“But remember that one of the requirements for validity is intention—minimally the intention to “do what the Church does.” It’s pretty clear to me that quite a number of clergy don’t have that intention because they believe that what the Church has been doing in the past, on the assumption that there was a God, was wrong-headed.”
That’s false logic. In doing what they church does, they are still based on that assumption even if they happen to disagree with it. Of course, it is hypocritical and dishonest to continue doing it but it is also a cornerstone of Catholic theology on the sacraments that the validity of sacraments is not based on the minister’s state or grace, let alone his opinions but one the proper forms and substances used.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 6:46 am
Hi H.E.,
You are circling around the Donatist controversy here. This is going to get beyond the ability of a simple layman like myself to explicate very quickly, so I’ll exit the field for people like str right now. Play nice str!
The fact that we are having to swing at this here, because the journalists who cover the issue never even approach these issues, is the problem. They could talk to any expert they want to to draw out the orthodox the position clearly, but they refuse to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 7:46 am
What are non-Roman Catholic churches?
Does this include Byzantine Catholic Churches or Syro-Malabar Catholic churches and others that are in communion with the Pope?
These churches don’t ordain women any more than the Latins in the West do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 7:51 am
I should have referenced the whole quote which is the second last sentence in this post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 9:30 am
The press has become the “thumb in the eye” crowd now. They may, rather than seem ignorant, be acting through their ignorance to attack the Church for scandal value.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 9:58 am
Honestly, I don’t think it is fair to say that it would appear that by reading the mainstream media that the only people ordained are transgendered / women , etc. It is reported on precisely because it is a rare phenomenon and I think that fact is accurately presented.
I do agree that it is odd that the churches are described as “catholic”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 10:31 am
Julia,
“non-Roman Catholic churches” are clearly churches not union with the Holy See of Rome, as the article deals with ecclesiastical law as determined by, among others, the Pope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 11:42 am
The ordination of women is very much not rare, being done by all of the mainstream protestant groups, as well as some evangelical and pentecostal groups.
The journalistic issue, an issue of basic honesty, is that these stories are written in such a manner as to leave an impression that Catholic women are being ordained. Some of them never were Catholic, some have already left the Church, the others the others are excommunicate. In no case do these ordinations occur within the Roman Catholic Church, nor in any of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
it’s the role of women that has become the touchstone of orthodoxy and the big deal.
Talk about basic honesty! The “touchstone of orthodoxy” is always that issue raised at the moment. Then those who raise it claim those who respond have made “the big deal”. Advocates of ordaining women have claimed for years that it is an issue of basic justice - it must be done. That’s a pretty “big deal” in my book.
Finally, why is intention brought up? The Catholic issue in ordaining women is “matter”. In Catholic theology, the “matter” (bad word in this case) for ordination must be a man as surely as bread and wine are the matter for Holy Communion. That is settled theology. Catholic life is full of unanswered questions we argue about, but some issues are settled. If you disagree with settled beliefs, there are tens of thousands of protestant denominations to chose from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 11:58 am
HE Baber wrote:
It’s only about 40 years that women have really been refusing to accept roles that institutions have assigned them for centuries. They blew the doors down, and the tremors are still reverberating. The history of the final generation of the 20th Century is one of institutions wrenching themselves into alignment with a new paradigm.
The instutitions that have not done so, for whatever reason, re-evoke those tremors every time the fact comes to the surface. That qualifies as news. Those positioned to spotlight such situations, are able to grab headlines.
On the other hand, priests with crises of faith are as common as mismatched socks, and always have been.
That’s “dog bites man” — not news.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 2:26 pm
I don’t think it’s as much a deliberate agenda of “sticking it to the Man” as “If these guys say they’re Catholics, then they’re Catholics (same as if they said they’re First Universal Church of the Crab Nebula Star-Spawn)”.
I particularly liked this bit from the L.A. Times story on the ‘bishop’, and I do get the feeling the reporter was a bit tongue-in-cheek about it:
“Marriage promotes growth,” says Hickman, 50, who has fathered five children, been married three times and divorced twice. “People who’ve never been married have a hard time knowing themselves.”
And if being married once makes you grow, just think how much you’ll grow after being married three times, not to mention how well you’ll know yourself! (Probably should have figured out by then that you’re not particularly suited to being married).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 6:32 pm
By that reasoning, the Roman Catholic Church shouldn’t identify itself as Catholic, either, because somebody might confuse it with, say, the Holy Catholic Church.
Does this guy have any idea what the word “catholic” means?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 6, 2010, at 11:11 pm
Uncle.
I give up.
I believe in God, understood an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, and in the Nicene creed (sans Filioque). I am sick of dealing with a church, the Episcopal Church, in which as far as I can gather, at least half of priests not only don’t believe in God but think that anyone who does is stupid.
But orthodox “Christian anthropology” I cannot buy. I cannot believe that sex differences are in some sense ontologically deep and theologically significant. So time to say good-bye. Between liberal “Christians” who are contemptuous of religious belief and the orthodox, for whom the significance of gender is a non-negotiable theological commitment, I have nowhere to go.
I’m torn up, truly. Goodbye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7, 2010, at 3:53 am
Steve,
he probably has more ideas than you about it.
The Catholic Church has been indentified as such (see Ignatius of Antioch, see Augustine of Hippo)- the former long before creeds talking about the “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” (referring to the very same) were drawn up.
And just as in Augustine’s time, if somebody says Catholic today, people will understand “that religious group headed by the Pope”. So the bishop’s take is the accurate one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7, 2010, at 4:00 am
H.E.,
Who is Uncle?
I understand your frustration about those priests but I don’t understand how this is relevant to this issue. (And I don’t believe your estimation is correct regarding priests.)
IMHO, priests not in line with the basic tenets of their denomination should go, long before they even get to “don’t believe in God’s existence” (which is not a very meaningful belief, if standing on its own).
Should go of their own accord (would be the proper thing) or be chucked out.
Some churches do that if such a disbelief becomes known, some don’t (as they are totally confused and more bound up with PC-related stuff) and some are simply slow.
I don’t know what you, H.E., are giving up. What were you attempting?
Ah, and yes, the sex somebody has is not a matter of negotiation but of biology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7, 2010, at 11:18 am
But the Ukranian Catholic Church and the Maronites are in union with the Holy See of Rome although they aren’t what most people call “Roman” Catholic. They don’t ordain women.
The Orthodox are Greek and the Catholics are Latin. Using “Roman” confuses rites with the Church itself. The Eastern Catholics have their own canon law although they are in union with the Pope, but they don’t ordain women.
It’s so common in this English-influenced country to see the term “Roman” Catholic that even bishops’ spokesmen use it unfortunately. But you will never see the Pope or the Curia in Rome use that term. It leaves out the churches of the East.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7, 2010, at 1:12 pm
H.E. Baber: “But orthodox “Christian anthropology” I cannot buy. I cannot believe that sex differences are in some sense ontologically deep and theologically significant. So time to say good-bye.”
Hello Professor Baber,
What “orthodox Christian anthropology” authors and arguments have you read, engaged, and interacted with?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 7, 2010, at 8:36 pm
I find Prof. Baber’s angst confusing. First, I find it hard to believe that half of Episcopal clergy are formally atheists. More believable would be that 50% deny some clause of the Nicene Creed or another. The actual percentages would, of course, vary from diocese to diocese, region to region: California and Texas would be very different stories. However, there remain dioceses that are generally sound with respect to creedal dogma, but also ordain women. In fact, most of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which is largely former Episcopalians, ordains women.
I am also confused as to why we are discussing women’s ordination (much less “Christian anthropology”). The issue is journalistic: the story presents purportedly Catholic women receiving purported ordination to the Catholic priesthood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 3:39 am
Julia,
“But the Ukranian Catholic Church and the Maronites are in union with the Holy See of Rome although they aren’t what most people call “Roman” Catholic. They don’t ordain women.
“The Orthodox are Greek and the Catholics are Latin. Using “Roman” confuses rites with the Church itself. The Eastern Catholics have their own canon law although they are in union with the Pope, but they don’t ordain women.
“It’s so common in this English-influenced country to see the term “Roman” Catholic that even bishops’ spokesmen use it unfortunately. But you will never see the Pope or the Curia in Rome use that term. It leaves out the churches of the East.”
And Ukrainians and Maronites would be considered (Roman) Catholic under above definition.
The Roman Catholic label is never accurate but it is used nonetheless, not just in English-speaking countries.
Again, the relevant difference is between churches inside the Catholic Church headed by the Pope and those outside. The article deals with the latter but talks as if it were the former.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 12:57 pm
The thing is, I remember when there were the stories of Mel Gibson’s faith during the time Passion of the Christ was out. For some reason news reports were adamant that he belonged to a separatist Catholic religion. For some reason, however, an ordaining of women that is far more out of the mainstream of Catholicism than Mel Gibson’s group is always regarded as Catholic without note of the separatist or independence of the congregations. I think politics of reporters play strongly in the distinctions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 4:52 pm
Why?
They are not Roman.
They don’t use the Roman rite or the Ambrosian or any of the other Western/Latin rites. They are Greek.
But they are Catholic, in union with the Bishop of Rome.
Many Eastern Catholics are very offended at being lumped in with what is called “Roman” Catholics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 4:55 pm
Agreed. Why not just say that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 5:15 pm
Julia,
“Why?”
I am trying hard to respond calmly but I am wondering whether you really don’t understand or simply act as if you don’t.
The term “Roman Catholic” is generally used (in the West) for the church headed by the Pope - for all its parts, regardless where.
New Yorkers are not Roman, neither are Philipinos! (And Maronites BTW are not Greek either and would probably be more offended by being called Greek - if “being offended” actually mattered in anyway. And why should Catholics anywhere be offended by being lumped together with their brethren elsewhere?)
Your examples don’t matter anyway because this issue (thus far) is only prevalent in Western countries, not in Ukraine or Lebanon.
To cut a long story short: when the media says “Roman Catholic” they mean “Catholic”, as in headed by the Pope. And “under the Pope” or not is the only distinction that mattered in the above context.
Got it?!?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 5:19 pm
Jettboy,
“For some reason news reports were adamant that he belonged to a separatist Catholic religion.”
That’s because both Mel Gibson and his father are traditionalists and the latter actually belongs to some schismatic group (separitist is a purely political term), as did Mel for a while. By then, Mel settled with the Society of Saint Peter, which is traditionalist but not schismatic. But schismatics dominate the news about traditionalism.
“For some reason, however, an ordaining of women that is far more out of the mainstream of Catholicism than Mel Gibson’s group is always regarded as Catholic without note”
Yes, that’s a valid criticism regarding groups that actually go out and do it or at least actively pursue it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 7:12 pm
The term “Roman Catholic” was coined by the Anglicans to deny the universal nature of Catholicism and portray it as just another particular church- The “Roman” church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 10:46 pm
The article as it currently stands says this is the 4th “Catholic” female priest ordained in the valley.
This line goes against my limited understanding of Catholicism “Participating in the ceremony were five bishops of independent churches, including Hickman, as well as the Rev. Vernon Meyer, a Catholic priest who resigned from the diocese this month.”
Are all five of these bishops over break-away Churches from Catholicism? Do any of them even claim Apostolic succession? Did Meyer participate in the ceremony or was he just there? If he participated in the ceremony, what does that mean, since priests can not ordain preists in Catholic doctrine? This all seems odd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 11:06 pm
I was right. The LA Times lets this “bishop” attack the Catholic Church without asking anything about his divorces, the circumstances of his fathering children, etc.
The stupidest line though was the mention of a heresy “trial” and then some rubbish about “we respect everyone’s religious freedom”. I think the Catholic Church should do more heresy “trials”. The name is maybe not the best, but to have people operating seperate Churches who have not been officially removed from the body of the Church is problematic to say the least.
I am surprised the Times did not head-line the article “The Inquisition comes to California”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 8, 2010, at 11:22 pm
H.E.,
Bishop Spong is an Episcopalian. His actions do not concern Roman Catholics. While many conservative Roman Catholics would argue that radical theologians still have too much sway and have not been disciplined enough, Pope Benedict XVI did somethings along those lines while director of the Office for the Defense of the Doctrine of the Faith, and has advanced some things along those lines as Pope.
However, you have to understand the open mockery involved in doing an invalid ordination. It is quite a disturbing thing to Catholics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 9, 2010, at 9:33 am
I think the Catholic Church should do more heresy “trials”.
Being outside the Catholic Church, the participants in this ordination are not subject to the charge of heresy. As a Catholic, I would be.
You could reasonably call the processes of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith “heresy trials”, since they examine various theological propositions and judge whether they are consistent with the Catholic Faith. But God forbid it look like a “trial”; that would set of a perpetual media feeding frenzy.
It is quite a disturbing thing to Catholics.
I’m a lot more by disturbed by shoddy and/or dishonest journalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
September 10, 2010, at 3:52 am
Passing By,
it the “Congregation for the DOCTRINE of the Faith”.
There is nothin wrong about the word or the fact “heresy trials”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0