I complain very often about the BBC, a nest of liberal vipers all too ready to forget any balance and abandon themselves to the most scandalous liberal/atheist/anti-Catholic bias.
I must say, though, that even on the BBC I have never heard anything remotely approaching the total lack of balance and basic religious literacy of the incompetent wannabe journalists living from the public purse at this sender.
You would think that the article has been written by some thirteen-years-old girl playing journalist, so cretinous the entire presentation of the matter is.
The author of this piece of misinformation truly seems to believe that it is possible to con the Church into creating what can’t be created. To even think of being able to write that “women were secretly ordained” as priests is on the same level of intelligence as believing that in 2002 seven women were secretly appointed Dobermann Of The Year, or Second Moon Of The Earth, or Secret Presidents of Middle Earth.
There cannot be women priest, because being a man is a constitutive element of being a priest. There can’t be women priests more than there can be barking cats. It’s as simple as that, and even a girl journalist – even if entirely stupid – should be able to get this.
Sadly, simple logical thinking doesn’t seem to be a requisite for journalism anymore. The newspaper ludicrously talks of “ordinations” as if a real ordination – instead of a pathetic masquerade – had really taken place. It talks of “domino effect” as if a mickey-mouse priestess would be able to validly confer holy orders to another mickey-mouse priestess. This is so stupid that every seven years old child, properly instructed, would find it completely unworthy of his time and an insult to his intelligence.
The bias truly knows no boundaries. The wannabe barking cats
“made their way down the aisle, beaming like brides”.
Good Lord! What is this, the screenplay of a third-rate comedy? The excited little scream of a Justin Bieber fan? This is below stupid.
But this is not all:
The two-and-a-half-hour ceremony ended with Holy Communion — the moment they’d been waiting for.
No it didn’t. They ate some bread after having dressed themselves and were blasphemous and sacrilegious in so doing. I’m glad that the idiots attending were punished with two and a half hours of this, though.
Each woman performed the rites for the first time as a priest, breaking bread and serving wine as tears of joy flowed down their faces.
Our little girl journalist is here fully losing control, or perhaps she thought that she was writing an email to some, no doubt, stupid girlfriend of her. Whatever this is, this isn’t journalism.
Following these pearls of wisdom and journalistic talent, the mind (if any) of these nutcases is explained or, better, unwittingly exposed:
Fellow ordinand Patti LaRosa had a similar experience growing up. She came from a close-knit Italian family and always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church.
So the lady felt “comfortable” in the Catholic Church. Hey, why leave it then? If I decide that I now am, say, a Mullah, why not to appoint myself “Catholic mullah”? I feeeel so comfortable with that!
And it so happens about this lady that:
Several times a week she would go to church during her lunch break, and one day she realized, “I’m supposed to be a priest.”
So she sits there and one days she thinks, “I’m supposed to be a priest”. She could have thought “I’m supposed to be an elephant”, and the logical content would have been exactly the same.
I suppose the lady doesn’t feel comfortable with elephants.
There should be less money for useless public radios, and more money for serious mental health care.
The “National Catholic Reporter” is, so to speak, the US equivalent of the infamous “Tablet”. Whilst claiming to be Catholic, this rag is in open conflict with the Church on doctrinal issues. They think it very cool and very modern, presumably.
Today they have, though, a different approach to heresy. As you can read here (if you really want) they have invited a Presbyterian would-be priest to tell us that he does his best not to tell Catholics what to believe but still tells us that “we miss a lot” without priestesses. His main argument seems to be that after seeing the first would-be priestess in his church, his daughter thought about becoming one. “Well, she didn’t do that”, he informs us before our curiosity becomes unbearable, “but at least she could think realistically about being a clergy member”. Now that is an impressive argument…..
Still, one must at least concede that the old man is a heretic and says so, whereas the NCR editorial staff are also heretics but don’t admit it. The brownie goes to the old man, then.
But this is not all: if you manage to read the article and succumb to the curiosity of reading the comments the entire catastrophe of modern (non)catechesis comes to light: one commenter asks (probably innocently) why “we” don’t “forget women priests” and “simply authorise nuns to give the Eucharist”. It would seem that (s)he just has a problem with having to receive from a man and that it is just a matter of “what we forget” and “what we authorise”. Another commenter defines doctrinal definitions as “self-serving” and says that “the sooner they are changed, the better” and this really takes the biscuit.
If NCR’s readers expect to find there the source of sound doctrine they are gravely deluded. More probably, though, they are so in the dark that they do not even know what Catholic doctrine is in the first place or they would avoid spreading such heresies and outright blasphemies.
Proper catechesis is at the root of proper Catholicism. We see every day the damage created by the inadequacy of a large part of our clergy, utterly unwilling to I do not say defend the teaching of the Church, but to give basic instruction about it. This will change, but it will take time. In the meantime, let us do it ourselves in our own little way.
Catholics complain very often that when heretical priests go around talking rubbish the reaction of the competent bishop is non-existent.
This seems not to have been the case here, where an entire board has been excommunicated for professing the usual Presbyterian nonsense. They wanted priestesses of course, and married priests to boot (says something about their priest, methinks), and communion is not inclusive enough so they wanted to give it to non-Catholics, too.
The bishop who acted and excommunicated the entire board was none other than Raymond Burke, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura or, if you prefer, the highest-ranking judge in Catholicism after the Pope. Burke is now one of the brightest stars in the Vatican firmament, with a red hat already in the post and a solid reputation as papabile. Goes to show that showing some guts does not have to be detrimental to one’s career. Ah, if ++ Nichols had known….
Seen with European eyes, the entire episode has some strange colours. The church board apparently owns the church. The new bishop makes a reconciliation proposal involving the church’s property rights; the community votes on that and chooses to remain a heretical group owning their own church. Fascinating.
Even more fascinating is the mentality of the remarkable would-be Presbyterian chap formerly masquerading as a Catholic priest, Mr Marek Bozek. Mr. Bozek claims that “the people have spoken, in ancient Rome the Christians used to say ‘Vox populi, vox dei”.
Vox Populi, Vox dei is an old saying (and I think: not Roman, but merely in Latin) which no Catholic would ever take literally or consider theologically meaningful as it goes completely against everything Christianity is and represents. But that’s a feminist priest for you.
In the same ballpark is the statement of a Mr. Zabielski, a formerly excommunicated member of the board who has in the meantime come back to the fold. “I don’t think he’s taking his church in the direction of a Roman Catholic church anymore”, says Mr. Zabielski about Mr Bozek, thus implying that there was a time when supporting priestesses etc. was purest Catholic orthodoxy…. I don’t know how traditional Polish liquors are called but boy, they must be strong.
Be it as it may, Mr Bozek seems not to have very clear what the Church is, but he seems to have very clear that he would like to marry. Perhaps the “chosen one” would soon have a beautiful job as “priestess” already lined up? Still, one is happy that there are people around who still prefer to remain excommunicated and look at the situation in the eye rather than to stay within the Church and spread their heresies from there. At least they won’t be able to say, that day, “I didn’t know this was against the Church’s teaching”…
But look at the positive side: now that Mr. Bozek’s little community of vox populi, vox dei-supporters has decided to have the Truth expertly made to measure by a tailor of their choice, they might be able to follow the example of some daring Anglican “pastoress” and give communion even to dogs. How very inclusive!
I have written yesterday about the drama of Anglicanism, where more and more people are discovering that they belong to the wrong shop without being able to draw the uneasy, but necessary consequences.
Today I’d like to point your attention to an article from the Anglican “Church Times” giving some insights of what is happening within the Anglican Communion and how most Anglicans will react.
Last weekend, a South East Asian representative of the Anglican Communion put to the vote the proposal to….. kick their American province out. It does make sense: once acknowledged that their theology has become so fundamentally different in a lot of key areas, it is plainly absurd to continue to pretend the existence of a unity which is not there anymore.
As a Catholic, one understands them all too well. To be united in one religious community means to believe the same things, failing which we have different communities. The Arians, the Nestorians, the Pelagians etc. have been declared not to be part of the Church because…. they didn’t believe what the Church believed.
Anglicanism seems to work differently, at least in its (as the Church Times says) “overwhelming majority”. No theological difference is so big that it would justify a separation. Rather, compromises are sought (and invariably found). For an Anglican, a separation would (and I quote again) “inhibit dialogue” and be therefore “unhelpful”.
As a result, the Anglican Communion will continue to have in its midst people who believe everything and its contrary; in transubstantiation, in consubstantiation, or in none of the two; who are in favour of bishopesses and priestesses, in favour of priestesses but against bishopesses, or against both; who consider themselves Catholics of the One Catholic Church (funny, this), Catholics of a separated church (funny that, too) or (correctly) Protestants; who believe in apostolic succession, or select their bishops through a democratic process; who consider homosexuality a perversion, or fine until one doesn’t commit sodomy, or jolly good and perfectly in order whatever one does; who want their bishops straight, or homosexual provided they are celibate, or homosexuals and living with their lover provided there is no sex (it gets funnier and funnier), or homosexual with a lover and full-blown sodomy and this is absolutely spiffing.
This is modern Anglicanism. Its only commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Split”. No difference is so big that it should “inhibit dialogue”, even when the differences are clearly insurmountable. Some of them will one day, unavoidably, recognise that this has become a parody of a Communion (and Anglicanism in vast parts a parody of Christianity) and will leave; but they’ll be a minority, no doubt considered “intolerant” and “judgmental” from the rest.
Imagine now Christianity of the first centuries. Imagine the Church saying to the Arians that there are differences, but they will be dealt with in a spirit of dialogue; telling the Nestorians that to declare them heretics would be “unhelpful”; telling the Pelagians that they will not be excluded from communion because the work of the Church “would be diminished if it lacked a range of opinions”.
“Ahh – I hear you saying – but the Church would never do that because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and these ecclesial communities aren’t; which is why they change theology, split continuously or remain together with different creeds and end up believing in inclusiveness and niceness as only guiding values”. And you are right, very right.
It remains a mystery to me how Anglicans can see the scale of the mess and still believe that the Holy Ghost is in any way, shape or form behind the Anglican Communion; how they can see the transformation of their communion into something completely different, nay, into many things completely different from each other and still pretend that it is the same thing as, say, only 100 years ago; how they can see the Holy Spirit inspiring one generation to believe the exact contrary of what former generations have been inspired to believe.
When we Catholics complain (as we should) that the one or other priest is heterodox, the one or other bishop socialist or the one or other cardinal outright devilish we should still reflect that no Pope or Council has ever said that divorce, abortion, sodomy, priestesses, bishopesses, consubstantiation & Co., & Co. are, henceforward, to be considered just fine. We should consider this and say: Thank God I’m Catholic.
Faithful to the motto oportet ut scandala eveniant, yours truly reports here an entry from Father Z’s blog informing us that the retired Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton has brilliantly discovered that 2000 years of Christian tradition and undisputed Church teaching about Male-only Priesthood are utterly and completely wrong. Caveat: this is not for the faint of heart.
It is also unclear whether Mr. Gumbleton is able to read, because if he were he would have stumbled across an Encyclical Letter called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (link is provided on the right column under “Church Teaching”). This Encyclical Letter was written for those less fortunate among us (the heretics, the extremely misinformed and the retards) who couldn’t accept the very clear evidence of Church teaching and was basically meant to tell them “just in case you were trying to deceive yourself into believing some sort of feminist nonsense, be informed that 1) you are not allowed to believe such nonsense and 2) you are not even allowed to discuss the matter”.
Bishop Gumbleton is very probably not a retard and being a Bishop one may safely suppose that he has received some sort of instruction. Therefore Bishop Gumbleton is a full-fledged heretic bent to cause maximum damage and confusion among Catholics because he is – albeit luckily already retired – a Bishop of the Only Church.
Besides praying for the conversion of Bishop Gumbleton and the other heretics, a useful thing you can do is to send your complaint to the Congregation for the Clergy at the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org . You may want to send a copy to the “Osservatore Romano”, email@example.com . If you prefer to write a letter, the address is: Congregazione per il Clero, Piazza Pio XII, 3, 00193 Roma, Italy. If I have got the wrong Congregation don’t worry, they’ll know where to forward.
Bishop Gumbleton should be either laicized or ordered to lock himself in a monastery for the rest of his days to clear his head and to expiate his sins. He needs our prayer but he needs to be severely and publicly punished, too. The times in which Bishops could confuse the minds of the simpler Catholics with their heresies and remain unpunished should now slowly but surely come to an end.
A Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is surely in order here.
One never ceases to be amazed at the ability of so many people to warp the most elementary concepts of logic, provided it helps them to feel good, important, modern or even supposedly clever. The always excellent Father Zuhlsdorf reports of the usual protest of a colourful bunch of women in pursuit of that logical, theological and, well, anatomical impossibility: the Female Priesthood. This would be funny if the mere existence of such extraordinary utterances were not a sad indication of the state of utter decay in which the Teaching has fallen after the happy experiments of the last decades.
Granted, the ladies are gravely confused even for the standard of your average Catholic, but how many Catholics really know why? How many Catholics think that the Church opposes (oh, that word…) “female priesthood” just because of her “conservatism”? If you were to ask your average Catholic in, say, San Luis Obispo whether he thinks that one day the Church might have (oh, that word…) “priestesses”, how many do you think would react with a hearty laugh and how many would answer that “one day the Church might be forced to react to societal changes”? I am terrified of writing this, but I strongly suspect that nowadays most Catholics believe that Male Priesthood is a choice. Which, if you think of it, is a beautiful witness of the decades long, relentless work of so many priests and bishops to undermine everything Catholic and to substitute it with the shallow, sugary, politically correct, insipid fare served at so many Protestant and at all Secularist tables.
If you, dear reader, are in need of a well-grounded and definitive knowledge of why there will never be a priestess before cats can bark I suggest the reading of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the encyclical letter of John Paul II dealing with the issue. It is easy to read, pretty well argued and unmistakably clear in saying that the nonsense must come to an end and that even the discussions about the expediency of having Shrek as the next President of the United States (or of having “priestesses”, or such like) are not allowed.
For your convenience, the link is provided on this very same blog, under Church Teaching. Have fun and spare a thought for the poor women.