Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

















































































« Abp. Chaput to journalists: "We now commonly see religion coverage that’s illiterate..." | Main | Catholic professor: Pope's visit to England was "a failure" »

Saturday, September 25, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7c369e20133f4903797970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Funniest line of the day: "We were excommunicated in 2008, but we rejected it...":

Comments

Bryan

It kind of reminds me of that Seinfeld episode when George tried to break it off with his girlfriend and she rejected the break up and decided to keep seeing him anyway. Both are so funny.

Alana LaPerle

I loved the reference in the article to Longhitano pretending "to say Mass, dispensing cookies and chips to her toys for communion. Sometimes, she would even baptize her dolls." I, too, formed fresh bread into "hosts" and played "Church" with my siblings, but I NEVER mistook this child-play for an adult vocation. As St. Paul said "When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man (adult), I put aside childish things" (1 Cor 13:11). It never ceases to amaze me how many people continue to balance their adult beliefs -- including rejection of a white-bearded-old-man-in-the-sky "god" -- on the shakey foundations of a pre age-of-reason eight year old.

Margaret Yo

Am in agreement for the most part.

Only problem is with the use of the term "priestettes', and the attitude following from it. (Not funny.) I find it demeaning and distracting of legitimate points being made. I may disagree with the actions and ideas of others, but I believe it is required of all of us to be respectful in our words and deeds in the expression of our differences of opinion and belief.

I believe it is possible to make the same points without the personal derision. It would be a stronger argument and one that I would respect.

JP

@ Margaret

If not 'priestette', then what? We can't call them priests. "Priest wannabe" is really no better than priestette.

I suspect they'd have a problem with simply 'delusional', 'disobedient', or 'mistaken' too.

Calling the women simply by their names does not make the connection directly to the error they are committing. Neither would 'sinner' be specific enough.

I think 'priestette' gets the point across. If they have a problem with it, they can reject the term along with all the Catholic teaching they they don't like.

Carl E. Olson

LJ: Exactly right, thank you.

Margaret: What "attitude"? Critical? Well, yes, of course! But how, exactly, is it "demeaning"--especially when the women who seek "ordination" as Catholic priests do so with a hubristic disregard for Church teaching that is truly insulting to real Catholics and to the sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

In fact, I came up with the term "priestette" (I'm not aware of prior use, but may have missed it; as best I can tell, my first use of it was in a blog post titled, "PRIESTETTES! PRIESTETTES! GET YOUR PRIESTETTES HERE!", posted on February 10/2003, on the Envoy Encore blog) precisely because it is an accurate term. Consider that the suffix "-ette" can mean or imply the following:

A smaller form of something. And, indeed, the "ordination" of women as Catholic priests is a small attempt to be or accomplish something that cannot actually exist.

The female equivalent of something. Ditto. Fairly self-evident.

• An imitation or substitute of something. Bingo! This is actually the primary focus of the term "priestette"--the imitative quality that speaks to a lack of knowledge, or humility, or maturity. Or all three, as is often the case.

Melanie

After reading this, I went on a link chase after reading this: "They say their conscience is supreme without qualification, which is directly contrary to clear Church teaching, which describes their position as a "mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience" and a "rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching" (CCC, par. 1792; see this post for much more).
" (this post being the one by Miss Graham about being a "pro-choice" Catholic), mainly to get a feel for what was behind Miss Graham's conclusion, her motivation. her argument was not of a philosophical nature at all but was a predictable characterization of someone whom the Bible tells us to "...have nothing to do with them." Not only does she want abortion, but she wants women priests and supports homosexuality. Unsurprising, but nevertheless warrants keeping away from her. I can find nothing in her impassioned and faulty plea that smacks of compassion or courage. Women who get abortions do not do so out of courage. They do so out of fear. And when people are afraid, they are not going to think, they are going to act. And they will want anyone and everyone to help them do what their desperation is telling them to do, desperation that is most definitely not coming from any godly trained conscience, not from the Holy Spirit. You help those in need of your help...but not by joining them in their sin. But some people, like Miss Graham, don't want you and I to have that choice. Apparently, only she gets to make choices so that you and I don't get to exercise our godly trained conscience. It
's always a disguise of the "you don't love me" refrain but Jesus would. That's the sticking point with this movement that not only wants to sin itself, but wants you and I to sin with them by joining in that sin. That's not just the person speaking, that's the enemy speaking through them. Such people like Graham want to be sly with the scripture to expect others to be "charitable" with philosophical argument. But our Lord gave us the example in such cases when even He did not embroil himself in a debate with the Devil but merely prefaced His replies with:"It is written..." The Devil has no response to that direct refutation. And that is what a servant of God needs to discern not Miss Graham's all to familiar and misappropriated use of the word "discernment".

Matthew

Carl:
Regarding the origin of the word 'priestette', I think I remember Manfred Hauke considering the term in the preface to his magisterial work "Women in the Priesthood?". He did wind up choosing to use "women priests" as opposed to "priestettes".

David Deavell

Did any one see the hilarious Time Magazine article on the growing movement of priestesses (is this better) leading break-off Catholic parishes? One group in Ft. Myers, FL had 25 people in their congregation and one in San Diego had about 150. And this was "evidence" for an unstoppable movement. Given the picture of the Ft. Myers choir, I'd say it might be a fairly strong movement in certain nursing homes.

LJ

• If their conscience is supreme, without qualification, it logically must have greater authority than the Church, which means 1) they have no need for the Church (so why do they seek the Church's approval?) and/or 2) the Church's authority is seriously flawed, even morally bankrupt, which also begs the question: why bother to be recognized and accepted by such an institution?

Precisely the questions I've always asked. It seems to me they have not only rejected authority, they have rejected reason. By their statements and actions they appear to be saying they have discovered the round square.

The only rational explanation I can come up with is that this is a strategy aimed at intimidation, a test of the wills perhaps, in the hope that those they believe have the authority to change the male-only priesthood will eventually cave in.

Which all simply shows what you have pointed out once again Carl, they really don't understand what the Church is, nor her relationship to Christ. And perhaps they really don't understand who Christ is either. If they did, you would think they would stop fighting against him.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad