The Washington Post’s coverage of the simulated ordination of a group of women in Pittsburgh this weekend has an ignominious start, right from the headline: “Reclaiming the Feminine Spirit in the Catholic Priesthood.” Okay, for one thing, what feminine spirit was there in the priesthood? Just because a few crackpot historians claim that there used to be Catholic priestesses in the early Church doesn’t make it so.
And let’s have all of the press get this straight: This is a non-story. If a dozen Americans decided to declare themselves members of Congress by holding a swearing-in on a barge somewhere (claiming that the judge who’s swearing them in was himself sworn in by an anonymous Supreme Court justice), it doesn’t make them members of Congress. It makes them nutjobs. If they try to vote on legislation, no one’s going to even pay attention to them, never mind debate whether their votes should be counted.
As I asked recently, who gets to decide who is a Catholic priest? If someone out there decides for himself, “I’m a Washington Post reporter,” does that make him a Post reporter? Is there even any question?
But let’s face it, this is more than just a simple question of who gets to decide. This story encompasses the bigger themes of old, stodgy all-male institution versus new, modern female uprising. (Although to look at these women, you’d be forgiven for wondering how “new” this is; more like re-runs from the ‘70s.)
At least the article reflects the reality that what these women did flies in the face of the most basic fact about the priesthood: That it is an extension of the bishop’s ministry. Most Catholics don’t know that, and I’m glad to see it in secular coverage.
Unfortunately, the rest of the article is lopsided. References and quotes are overwhelmingly from advocates of women’s ordination, while the orthodox side is upheld by a partial quote from a lone blog. (I don’t consider the other blogger to be on the orthodox side, whatever he told the reporter.)
I like this line from the article: “There have been no further excommunications since the first seven, which the women believe reflects a softening of the church’s position.” Or it could mean that the Church has spoken, everyone knows that the ordinations are invalid and the women are separating themselves from the Church, and that continued exercises of this kind are beneath noting.
Yet, I do have to give the reporter credit for one good catch, noting the seeming hypocrisy:
Meehan and others in the group seemed to hold contradictory sentiments about approval from church authority. On the one hand, they say the ordination ceremonies are legal because of the involvement of the bishop in good standing. On the other hand, they say the current rules are illegal and should be ignored.
If they can’t go public with lines of succession, then the authenticity can be legitimately questioned, even if the ordinands were men. An exception would be danger of death, and event then the Holy See would have the record kept “in pectore.”
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
These women are all wet
The Washington Post’s coverage of the simulated ordination of a group of women in Pittsburgh this weekend has an ignominious start, right from the headline: “Reclaiming the Feminine Spirit in the Catholic Priesthood.” Okay, for one thing, what feminine spirit was there in the priesthood? Just because a few crackpot historians claim that there used to be Catholic priestesses in the early Church doesn’t make it so.
And let’s have all of the press get this straight: This is a non-story. If a dozen Americans decided to declare themselves members of Congress by holding a swearing-in on a barge somewhere (claiming that the judge who’s swearing them in was himself sworn in by an anonymous Supreme Court justice), it doesn’t make them members of Congress. It makes them nutjobs. If they try to vote on legislation, no one’s going to even pay attention to them, never mind debate whether their votes should be counted.
As I asked recently, who gets to decide who is a Catholic priest? If someone out there decides for himself, “I’m a Washington Post reporter,” does that make him a Post reporter? Is there even any question?
But let’s face it, this is more than just a simple question of who gets to decide. This story encompasses the bigger themes of old, stodgy all-male institution versus new, modern female uprising. (Although to look at these women, you’d be forgiven for wondering how “new” this is; more like re-runs from the ‘70s.)
Playing at priesthood
Technorati Tags:Catholic, dissent, ordination, priesthood, women’s ordination
At least the article reflects the reality that what these women did flies in the face of the most basic fact about the priesthood: That it is an extension of the bishop’s ministry. Most Catholics don’t know that, and I’m glad to see it in secular coverage.
Unfortunately, the rest of the article is lopsided. References and quotes are overwhelmingly from advocates of women’s ordination, while the orthodox side is upheld by a partial quote from a lone blog. (I don’t consider the other blogger to be on the orthodox side, whatever he told the reporter.)
I like this line from the article: “There have been no further excommunications since the first seven, which the women believe reflects a softening of the church’s position.” Or it could mean that the Church has spoken, everyone knows that the ordinations are invalid and the women are separating themselves from the Church, and that continued exercises of this kind are beneath noting.
Yet, I do have to give the reporter credit for one good catch, noting the seeming hypocrisy:
Good point.
COMMENTS
Carrie:
If they can’t go public with lines of succession, then the authenticity can be legitimately questioned, even if the ordinands were men. An exception would be danger of death, and event then the Holy See would have the record kept “in pectore.”
Sooner or later, these gals gotta ‘fess up.
Posted by David L Alexander on 07/31/06 at 09:20 AM
I wonder if the Globe would do a story about me if i started addressing myself as “The Imperial Grand Poobah of the Bedrock Waterbuffalo Lodge”.
Posted by Dennis_Mahon on 07/31/06 at 12:24 PM
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.