After On Faith; a Waters update | Belle and Sebastian … and God | Sigh … More silence than grace | Glenn Beck’s gospel | A tale of two blasphemies | ESPN’s Dusty Baker faith no-no | Why journalists love Westboro Baptist | Womenpriest trend pieces past expiration date? | Street preaching is so uncouth | Baseball demons, angels and Jesus | 2010 Archive >
Oh dear. Just as the rumors about Newsweek are becoming more positive, the news product offered by Time is suffering. Last week we looked at a very poor piece of journalism about female priests in non-Roman Catholic churches. And we looked at the odd defense offered by the reporter.
Many journalists — some on the record, some in private correspondence with us here at GetReligion — wondered just how this story made it to publication.
The bad news is that the editors have followed up that story with a similarly awful one. I have no idea what’s going on here but methinks Henry Luce is not happy.
Here’s the predictable lede in Tim Padgett’s story:
Like any good priest, Judy Lee knows how to use a Bible story. One of the readings for Roman Catholic Masses on a recent Sunday, from the Book of Wisdom, recounts how the Hebrews defied the pharaoh by worshipping God “in secret.” That passage resonates at the house in Fort Myers, Fla., where Lee is conducting Mass for 25 Catholics gathered in front of a coffee-table altar in defiance of the Pope. “Rome says you’ll be thrown out of the church for being here,” says Lee, “because I’m a woman.”
Lee, 67, considers herself a validly ordained Catholic priest. The Vatican disagrees. “The Catholic Church … has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women” because Jesus had no female Apostles, Lee was told in a letter from the local bishop, the Rev. Frank Dewane — who also informed her that she had been excommunicated for ignoring that doctrine. Lee’s reply: “Rome can impose all the rules it wants on women, divorced people, gay people. But it can’t stop us.” (See the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.)
She and the more than 100 other women who claim to be Catholic priests in the U.S. and abroad can thank the church for one thing: its hysterical response to their movement — in July the Vatican branded female ordination a delictum gravius, or grave crime, the same label it has given pedophilia — has elicited enough attention to lift their profile out of the catacombs. As TV-news trucks waited outside, Nancy Corran, 37, took holy orders on July 31 at the Mary Magdalene Apostle Catholic Community, a five-year-old San Diego splinter parish with 150 members. Rome’s latest decree, says Corran, “was outrageous even for the church.” Says Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at the University of Notre Dame: “It’s a sign the church knows this isn’t going away.”
That’s the hope of Roman Catholic Womenpriests, a group founded eight years ago in Europe. It has since ordained women like Lee and Corran in more than 20 American states and Canada. Womenpriests and other organizations promoting female Catholic clerics, like the Women’s Ordination Conference, don’t expect to change Vatican doctrine anytime soon. But their growing following signals that Catholics, already incensed by the never ending clerical sexual-abuse crisis, are losing patience with Rome’s refusal to let women into the leadership of a church to which more than 20% of Americans belong. “We’re the Rosa Parks of the Catholic Church,” says Bridget Mary Meehan, a Womenpriests bishop and former nun. “We no longer accept second-class status in our own religion.”
I think it’s funny that in our criticism of the previous piece, we joked that they were making everyone out to be Rosa Parks. But apparently that was too subtle for now we have the quote which spells it out.
There are not, however, any quotes that provide balance or context. I’m sure everyone’s favorite part in the excerpt above is Padgett’s dramatic claim about Vatican “hysteria.” I mean, I think we can all agree that the Vatican didn’t think through the public relations problem of referring to female ordination as a grave crime in the same document that declares pedophilia a grave crime, and if I were running a campaign against Rome, I’d sure as heck make a big deal of that. But reporters should not be in the business of running campaigns against the Catholic Church. Or if they’re going to, they should at least do it more substantively and fairly. Even at the time the norms were issued, the Vatican took pains to distinguish the two, pointing out that violations of the sacrament are one type of grave crime and moral violations are another type of grave crime. But it’s not even like these are new inventions of doctrine. The Catholic Church has never approved of female ordination.
And what else to point out? Oh, I don’t know. How about how if the Vatican does not recognize you as “a validly ordained Catholic priest,” then you are not “a validly ordained Catholic priest.”
The story is an unbelievable puff piece. We learn that most of the women who claim ordination are highly educated and have done years of rigorous work. But we do not hear from a single person who can explain why the church does not ordain women. Instead we hear that Catholics “consider the church’s logic … to be as thin as a Communion wafer.” There’s lots of characterization of the views of unidentified church leader and plenty of “critics say” type writing. The reporter tells us, for instance, that “critics feel … the Vatican is forgetting decency.”
It’s all bad. I want to quote each and every paragraph, because they’re not just bad, they’re deliciously bad. It’s like that old Saturday Night Live skit with Tom Hanks called “The Gross-Out Family.” Someone finds some old milk and then everyone in the family tastes it. That’s what I want you to do. I want you all to go read the Time story so we can all share in this moment.
But I’m saving the best for last. This is the actual last paragraph of the piece:
Numbers may force Rome’s hand. Since 1985, the number of U.S. Catholic priests has plunged almost a third, to fewer than 40,000; more than 3,400 American parishes are without a resident priest, up from 1,051. To replenish the ranks, the church will probably let male priests marry before it ever ordains women. But the female priests say this should be about doing the right thing, not just the numerical thing. That’s the chant from their makeshift altars — and with an unintentional assist from Rome, they’re finally being heard.
Riiiiiiight. You know, ever since I came up with my theory that these frequent womenpriest stories are part of some Bulwer-Lytton-type newsroom contest for who can write the worst one, I’ve come to enjoy reading them. And this one is no exception. I must say that Padgett’s ending was just the kind of strong finish in awfulness that the committee is probably looking for.
Written by: Mollie on October 7, 2010. Posted at 8:13 am | Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (34) 34 Responses to “Womenpriest trend pieces past expiration date?” Tom says: October 7, 2010, at 8:51 amThere’s something that even your excellent criticism seem to miss, Mollie. It’s not just what the Vatican or canon law says that means women can’t be priests. Rules about who can be priests aren’t like rules about who can be president. Nobody under the age of 35 can be president; but we could change the Constitution, hypothetically, and end up validly electing a president who is 34. Not so with women and priests. Even if the Vatican says something different, and changed canon law, women could still not be priests, because, ontologically speaking, women cannot receive the sacrament of ordination. The Vatican “rules” are, as the Catholic Church understands it, simply a recognition on the part of the Church of the way things are. Trying to ordain a woman to the priesthood would be like trying to consecrate an apple as the Eucharist. There’s nothing wrong with apples; they’re really great, as a matter of fact. But it is impossible to consecrate them into the Body of Christ. This is what’s known in Catholic sacramental theology as “invalid matter.” In other words, the subject under consideration for the reception of the sacrament, by being what it is, is incapable of receiving the sacrament.
Unfortunately, most reporters treat this issue like it’s just a matter of a law, which can be passed or repealed based on who’s in power. Get the right kind of progressive thinking folks in authority who can change the Church’s rules, and we can have women priests in the Catholic Church. That’s not the Catholic Church’s view. That’s really hard for a reporter raised in a liberal democracy to understand, because we Americans tend to think that everything’s up for a vote. The vast difference in mindset from that of most Americans that this point of Catholic doctrine requires in order to understand it is responsible for the extreme difficulty most reporters have in covering it.
And by the way, even a lot of bishops have trouble understanding it. Just because a given bishop gives a simplistic defense of the Church’s position on this issue, doesn’t mean that his defense exhausts what the Church actually says about it.
Jon in the Nati, non-Catholic says: October 7, 2010, at 9:15 amWell, at least this article acknowledges that the Mary Magdalene community is not a Roman Catholic parish; it is schismatic. Not that it appears to matter; does a reporter not ask “How can one be a Roman Catholic priest when one is not a member of a Roman Catholic diocese (or in some other way subject to the Holy See)?”
This is all quite frustrating to me as a journalist, even though I happen to think that ordination of women is less than scandalous. But regardless of where one stands on the matter, there is such an obvious logical disconnect between what these women say they are and what the competent ecclesiastical authorities say they are that not to ask about it and dig a bit deeper is absurdity of the highest order.
Chris says: October 7, 2010, at 9:19 amEven though the pope is German, an individual can’t be “…made a priest by a group of German female theologians who four years earlier had been ordained by a renegade cleric "” and who were made bishops, they claim, by a sympathetic European bishop whose identity they won’t reveal.” Talk about anonymous sources! But then, my favorite sentence: “If true, that Da Vinci Code "” like scenario, they argue, gives the Womenpriests the legitimacy of apostolic succession, the priestly line that dates back to Jesus’ Apostles.” Are you sure that isn’t tongue in cheek? After all, The Da Vinci Code is, well, fiction…
RiverC says: October 7, 2010, at 9:25 amLast I checked, when she decided to get ordained, she quit her religion - you can’t be a second-class citizen in a society you are not part of.
Peggy says: October 7, 2010, at 10:27 amI enjoy your coverage of these lousy stories. TIME seems to be on an agenda of promoting women Catholic priests. I wonder what’s up with their editors. At least in this story: 1. The “woman priest” was a real Catholic who excommunicated herself and now is in a schismatic group. At least the group is specified as not in connection with Rome. 2. The journalist clarified that these women “consider themselves priests” and did not assert that they ARE Roman Catholic priests. He also wrote that they “claim to be.” The prior article couldn’t even do that.
I think it is incorrect to refer to a bishop as “Rev.Frank Dewane”. The article can’t give decent respect to the bishop. He should be called “Bishop Frank Dewane.” I knwo it might have made the article seem awkward, but I don’t think a bishop is a mere “reverend”—no offense to priests.
These women can’t see past their own desires. They don’t seem to comprehend that there is a supernatural element to excommunication and Church discipline. It’s not just an expulsion from prep school. I maintain that modernists and dissenters tend to focus on the ‘material’ and don’t seem to comprehend the ‘supernatural’ aspects of Catholic Faith, Morals and Tradition.
tmatt says: October 7, 2010, at 10:33 amA key point here.
These women are ordained. They are, in a way, Protestants. They have been ordained into their own new liturgical church. Think of it as a liberal version of the Charismatic Episcopal Church.
What they are not is priests in the Catholic Church, led by Pope Benedict XVI. That’s a matter of canon laws and blunt facts.
Now, TIME can have people debate the wisdom of that. That’s great. Line up the voices on both sides and let ‘er rip. Let the Catholics explain why they believe what they believe. Let the schismatics explain why they have started their own operation and why THEY consider it valid.
There are historic facts that are facts. There are canon laws that are facts. They can and should be debated. But the facts must be mentioned and stated accurately.
Martha says: October 7, 2010, at 10:41 amI’m torn between wanting to burst into tears or bang my head on the desk.
At least it did make some concession, with she “considers herself a validly ordained Catholic priest” but the trouble is it is phrased as “X says yes, Y says no, you decide!”
Would we get stories on “Lee considers herself the starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox”? Somehow, I think not.
Tommy Flanagan says: October 7, 2010, at 10:43 amThose women ARE true Catholic priests. And Morgan Fairchild is my wife… yeah, that’s the ticket!
Martha says: October 7, 2010, at 10:48 am“Lee's reply: "Rome can impose all the rules it wants on women, divorced people, gay people. But it can't stop us." (See the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.)”
Speaking of bad reporting, what is that last even about? If Mrs. Lee is the equivalent of Pastor Jones or Brother Billy-Bob, following on the grand tradition of defying the exactions of Rome in the proud boast of the Reformation, then she ain’t no Roman Catholic priest and is very decidedly not the same manner of creature as the Reverend Seamus O’Flynn, P.P. Our Lady of the Seven Dolours Church.
So is she a Roman Catholic, an evangelical, a Protestant, or the big cheese of her own little local denomination?
Martha says: October 7, 2010, at 10:55 amPeggy, wikiHow addresses your pertinent point
“In writing a letter, address the letter to “The Reverend First Name Last Name” and “Dear Father” for a Roman Catholic Priest in the United States. “Very Reverend First Name Last Name” and “Dear Father” for a Monsignor, and “Most Reverend First Name Last Name” and “Your Excellency” for a Bishop or Archbishop.”
So he should be the Most Reverend Frank Dewane, D.D., Bishop of Venice at first reference and Bishop Dewane (or even His Excellency Bishop Dewane) thereafter.
donbtex says: October 7, 2010, at 11:48 amIs it too much to ask that the reporters doing these stories on ‘women priests’ us the term “alledged priests” when referring to these women?
When stories of people arrested as suspects in a crime matter, they are usually referred to as the ‘alledged suspect’ or some similar term.
These women may call themselves anything they want to but they are not validly ordained Catholic priests.
Robert King says: October 7, 2010, at 12:29 pm@Martha (#9) - I think the parenthetical non-sequitur is an internal ad linking to another Time story. It’s probably auto-generated.
Still, it makes for good laughs while reading.
Robert King says: October 7, 2010, at 12:33 pmWhile this was better than the other Time article, in that it gave lip service to the “she said, he said”, it still got entirely wrong the difference between doctrine and discipline.
In the Catholic Church, it is doctrine that women cannot be ordained; it is discipline that married people cannot be ordained in the Roman Rite. The latter can be changed with the stroke of a pen; the former cannot be changed without altering the entire constitution of the Church.
I wish Time (or anyone) would do a story on the difference between the Catholic understanding of doctrine and the American/democratic/liberal understanding of doctrine.
Kevin White says: October 7, 2010, at 1:39 pmA more basic problem that I have never seen these articles address: why no follow-up on the claims of the womenpriests founders about being made bishops in a secret ceremony? Leaving aside the possibility of women’s ordination, a secret ordination following an unspecified rite by an unidentified bishop with no corroborating witnesses simply will not be recognized by Rome because there is no proof that the ceremony even happened. So why no inquiry into whether their founding “womenbishops” are simply charlatans, or if their lineage actually comes from Old Catholics or Independent Catholics.
Given the fact that even the most dubious of Independent Catholics post copies of their Apostolic Succession all over the place, the secrecy of the womenpriests founders is rather strange. Wouldn’t it make an interesting story?
Stephen says: October 7, 2010, at 1:47 pmAnother person in the news lately has been “Bishop” Eddie Long of Atlanta. I haven’t seen any articles that question his use of the term “Bishop” or referring to him as an “alleged” Bishop. Is there a double standard here?
Peggy says: October 7, 2010, at 1:54 pmThanks Martha. Yes, bishops are addressed as “Your Excellency..”
Randy says: October 7, 2010, at 2:30 pmIt is quite amusing that the piece finishes off with “they're finally being heard.” If there is one problem womenpriests don’t have is being heard. They have had a ton of free publicity given their small numbers. So who is supposed to hear them? The pope and the bishops? They are well aware of the existence of women like this. The story admits they just addressed the issue in a CDF document. Are they thinking sympathy for these women from Catholic laymen is what is needed. They have had that for decades as well. If anything that sympathy is in decline but it is still quite strong. So who needs to finally hear? Is anyone remotely connected to the Catholic church unaware of this issue?
It is not a matter of the question never being raised. It is a matter of it being raised frequently and the answer being No. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis being the firmest No given in 1994.
SarahTX2 says: October 7, 2010, at 3:20 pmWho needs to hear? Maybe the other 80% of the U.S. population which stands in disbelief that they have to subsidize with a tax exemption the last institution in our country which outright discriminates against women merely because of the fact that their bodies are capable of bearing children. And, judging from the comments here, the Catholics are excessively proud of their discrimination against women.
I think that Time could have made their point even stronger by clarifying for the rest of us that in the Catholic Church all women seeking ordination have excommunicated themselves and yet no priest has ever excommunicated himself or been excommunicated for raping a child.
jh says: October 7, 2010, at 3:38 pmFirst the article fails to note the whole new Anglican Structure that is coming online. Needless to say they would not be coming over if they thought there were going to be female Priests and Bishops.
Second why oh why are these articles also viewed though the Latin Church viewpoint. There are many Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If the Catholic Church had female Priests and Bishops it would cause a historic break. The Catholic Church just does not include Latin rite Catholics but include Eastern Churches that are in Union with Peter.
Third where are the Eastern Orthodox in this article? The highest priority of the Vatican is reunification with what John Paul the II called the Second Lung of the Church. That being the various 300 million Orthodox Christians. Such a move would not drive a nail into the coffin as to that no doubt there would be massive defection of Catholics to Orthodoxy.
It does seem if Time wants to keep doing these types of articles they need to bring in these related issues
Mollie says: October 7, 2010, at 3:43 pmPlease keep comments focused on media coverage and not your particular views about whether ordination of females is good or bad.
Bill Wilson says: October 7, 2010, at 3:53 pmSo, linking pedophilia and ordaining women was a PR problem. To believe that this is mere “PR” reflects the huge disconnect between those who think like faceless bureaucrats and those who deal with real, suffering people. The “church” has failed egregiously in treating the victims with compassion. Benedict has shown far more compassion for the pedophile priests and the enabling bishops and cardinals than he has for the long-sufferng (literally) lay people whose lives have been ruined. Bishops have used every legal ploy available to avoid or delay redressing the grievances of the abused and have forced them to sign confidentiality agreements to avoid “scandal” with regard to the reputation of the “church,” while Rome looked the other way. It’s no wonder many of us birth catholics feel no respect for our “leaders” and offer them little credence in any area of church discipline or ethics. I’m no theologian, but I find the arguments against ordaining women, the mandated “gift” of celibacy in the Roman rite, and the immorality of in-vitro fertilization to be totally specious. Maybe the official church will one day again catch up with the believing faithful as it did in the days when Arianism ran rampant in the institutional church and the laity saved the clergy from themselves.
Julia says: October 7, 2010, at 3:56 pmSarahTX2
Being a priest is not a job opportunity.
The Catholic Church IS NOT the only institution in our country which does not ordain women.
Other than certain sacramental functions, unordained people can and do most of the jobs in the church. There are many women chancellors in Catholic dioceses; women presidents of universities; women canon lawyers; women who run hospitals. The Catholic Church has offered Catholic women the opportunity to perform all kinds of high level functions centuries before the rest of the world thought about doing it.
Excommunication is for defiance of church law; it’s a whole different thing than penalties for harming a child. Excommunication is similar to “contempt of court” in the US legal system. Murderers don’t get slapped with contempt of court - unless they are disruptive in the court room or verbally defy the judge to his face, etc.
joye says: October 7, 2010, at 5:43 pmI think some definite spiking needs to happen in these comments. My fingers are twitching with the temptation to defend my Church. However I will refrain because I respect the rules of GetReligion.
What I wanted to say, on topic, is that I can’t believe that not even the spelling errors have been corrected in the previous Time story by Dawn Reiss. The caption on the photo still described Ms. Jacko as becoming “a deaconate”.
I’m not a journalist and my views on the profession are rapidly approaching Kierkegaard’s famous insult, but please, journalists, hear my cry and answer if you can.
Don’t you guys CARE any more?
Reading a news article is increasingly akin to watching a movie where the zipper on the monster’s back is fully visible, or a boom mike floats over the actors’ heads. In B movies, this is because, as Mystery Science Theater 3000 famous put it, “They just didn’t care!” But for such sloppiness to go uncorrected for two weeks in the most prominent newsmagazine in the US? Is that what your industry has sunk to?
Will says: October 7, 2010, at 6:08 pmAnd there is Jose Adames, who “considers” himself the “real” Mayor of New York. Would he get such a respectful treatment, with “City Hall disagrees”?
Martha says: October 7, 2010, at 6:49 pmjoye, I’m beginning to wonder if the online version is seen as a kind of dumping ground - just shove anything on there and never mind about fact-checking or even spell-checking; just get those hyperlinks in and make sure the ad revenue is clocked up!
I mean, this is a completely different reporter, yet the expression “serving Communion” was still used. Ignorance is not bliss in this case. Ms. Lee, if she was an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, did *not* “serve” Communion (which brings to my mind images of the good china and the lace doilies and a nice tray being passed around); she distributed the hosts (and possibly the chalice if communion was taken under both species).
I nearly wept when I read the following specimens of the journalistic art:
“Meehan, 62, once did ministry work that included “everything a priest does,” she says "” except saying Mass.”
O RLY? She officated at weddings (and signed the register as the legal registrar)? Preached sermons? Granted absolution when hearing confessions? Gave the Last Rites and performed the anointing of the sick? Everything except say Mass, hmmm? If that was true, the bishop of her diocese needs to get onto that parish immediately and crack down like a very cracky cracking-down thing, because we’re talking *massive* simulation of the sacraments here, ladies and gentlemen.
“Like Meehan, most of the almost 80 Catholic women ordained in the U.S. hold advanced religious degrees and have logged years of lay work in the church, from premarriage counseling to serving Communion.”
The pertinent word here being “lay”. I might have logged years as a provider of first aid, but that doesn’t make me a doctor. And that rather knocks the notion of “the priests do everything, the laity are completely powerless” on the head, if these laywomen are doing all this work all over the place. Plus, you don’t have to be ordained for marriage counselling, so again I say, what’s the big deal?
The best bit, though, is this description of what these ordained ladies do now that they’re “priests”.
“They perform baptisms and legally recognized marriages.”
I got news for you, Mr. TIME reporter; *I* could perform a baptism. Heck, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris could perform a baptism! All you need is (1) water (2) the proper Trinitarian formula (3) the intention to perform what the Church considers to happen. There ya go - no ordination required!
And if they want to perform legally recognised marriages, they can become county registrars, y’know.
I give up. I can’t wait for the Martians to land, because maybe then we’ll get good old-fashioned editing under our new alien overlords
Martha says: October 7, 2010, at 7:20 pmThe internet is a great thing. I did a bit of digging and it would appear (1) Judy Lee has a Facebook page (well, doesn’t everyone?) (2) she’s a friend of something called “Ecclesia Ministries Mission to Other Cities” which is a Boston-based (I think) ecumenical group ministering to the homeless - all very laudable, indeed (3) she has a book out through (I hesitate to call it a vanity press, but…) PublishAmerica about her work with the Church in the House and the Church in the Park ministry in Fort Myers (4) she may or may not be affiliated with or conducting services out of or someway involved with a United Methodist church in Fort Myers called Good Shepherd (I got this from the Ecclesia Ministries Facebook page about her; looking up churches in Fort Myers, there are two Good Shepherds, one Lutheran and one United Methodist. I may be doing the Methodists a disservice, but I didn’t think she fit in with the Lutherans).
“Known as "Pastor Judy" to the members of the Good Shepherd community in Fort Myers , Florida , Rev. Dr. Judith Lee lives her life-long call to love and serve the poor. With Doctorates in Ministry and Social Work, she has been serving the homeless since 1982. The author of many publications, she is Professor Emerita at the University of Connecticut . She was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest in July of 2008 and is a leader in the Southern Region of Roman Catholic Women Priests.”
Struck me as slightly odd that the Ecclesia Facebook page had more about her than the Official Roman Catholic WomanPriests website (which only gave a line and an email address) - strikes me as oddly cagey somehow. But who knows?
Is I a real reporter like what works for TIME now?
tess says: October 7, 2010, at 9:18 pm
God calls the priest, and the Church ordains the calling. Why does the Institutional Church assume so much authority to control this process. The priest is supposed to come ‘from the community.’ Peter, the Rock, was called to build the foundation. The idea that Peter and his successors were charged by Jesus to make myriads of laws and rules regarding the priesthood is a construction of man, in his guided or misguided following of the Gospel. Tom provides an impressive example of THE LAW. But the truth is, THE LAW has been created by man, who was ENTRUSTED by Jesus to be the foundation of the Church. That does not mean that the Church is static and in being so, strong. Rather, the Church should be organic, growing and changing to better prepare itself and adapt itself for the work of the Kingdom.
tmatt says: October 7, 2010, at 10:45 pmThere are Protestant bodies that use the term “bishop.”
The issue here is the claim that the priests are in any way Catholic in the ancient sense of that term.
Passing By says: October 7, 2010, at 11:40 pmMost of the U.S.’s 65 million Catholics consider the church’s logic behind the ban on female priests to be as thin as a Communion wafer.
And most of the 330 million Americans don’t buy Time. My statement, while meaningless, can be substantiated. Their statement would have meaning, if it were substantiated. But I will give the reporter points for “as thin as a Communion wafer”. Clever, isn’t he.
As always, I feel obligated to point out the lack of definition in what, precisely, “The Catholic Church” is. Too often, people who use the term (including faithful Catholics, at times) mean the hierarchy, particularly “The Vatican”. These womynpriest stories tend to contrast the Catholic Church with the Vatican, equally wrong. I’m put in mind of “Brother Sun, Sister Moon”, with it’s heavy-handed contrasting of the pompous rich people in Church with the simply hippie Francis and his followers worshipping in nature.
At less Ms. Lee appears to have been an actual Catholic before her “ordination”, unlike Nancy Corran, a former Presbyterian (that’s right, I think). That story was sheer desperation.
The young fogey says: October 8, 2010, at 5:51 pmI see these endless poorly reported stories as back-handed testimony that Western civ is Catholic. They’re attacking and lying about the only church worth getting mad at.
John Pack Lambert says: October 9, 2010, at 5:11 amStephen, Eddie Long never claims he is a Catholic Bishop. The problem is that people say these women are Catholic Priests. It often is unclear who ordained them, but it is clear that they do not make a public claim to apostolic succession as true Catholic priests do, in fact they deliberately refuse to reveal some crucial identities.
Some of the articles have spoken of mere priests doing the ordaining, and one almost seemed to say the congregation did it. If they did not try to claim they were Catholic, and use to term to imply some connection with the Church lead by Pope Benedict (while portraying him in the most negative light possible) people would not have issues. Of course, the articles would hardly have meaning, because The Episcopal Church has had female priests for about 40 years.
John Pack Lambert says: October 9, 2010, at 5:16 amSarah, To begin with the Catholic Church is not the only organization that treats men and women differently. Being at a university with many fraternities and sororities your statement sounds ludicrous.
Mormons, Orthodox Christians, most Orthodox Jews, Muslims and even some other religious groups do not have female religious leaders. The subsidize with a tax exemption rhetoric is just plain hogwash. There are lots and lots of non-religious tax exempt organizations. Anyway, the 80% to 20% would only make sense if 20% of the US was Catholic clergy.
Will says: October 9, 2010, at 9:30 amWould the man in Kansas who “considers himself” Pope get such softball coverage?
Passing By says: October 9, 2010, at 8:31 pmWould that be Pope Pius XIII? Or Pope Michael?
Leave a Reply Name [Required]: Email [Required]: Your blog/website:GetReligion will not publish, sell or share your email address, or send you spam. When we notice posts without names or email addresses, we will delete them. Why? Read our Comments/TrackBacks policy.
WARNING
Your browser does not support JavaScript or has JavaScript disabled!
This will not compromise the possibility to leave a comment, although the automatic insertion of both markup tags and emoticons will not work.
Markup Controlspowered by C4F Textarea Toolbar
