 |
| Dissident Vested Laywomen Lobby Vatican To Do What It Cannot |
(CNA/EWTN News) - A Lutheran teacher's lawsuit led to a provocative question being asked in the Supreme Court on Oct. 5: could government efforts to end job discrimination jeopardize the all-male Catholic priesthood?The Supreme Court justices picked up on the implications of this immediately, and repeatedly described the Obama administration's stand as 'extraordinary.' I believe it is highly unlikely the U.S. Supreme Court will side with the Obama administration on this issue. If it does however, we Catholics here in the United States will be faced with a very big problem
The case pitting the commission against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School does not directly concern the issue of women and the priesthood. But justices were quick to connect the matter at hand – involving the Lutheran group's right to hire and fire ministers at their discretion – with the issue of Catholics' and other groups' right to determine who will exercise ministries....
read full story here
Let's assume the U.S. Supreme Court sides with the Obama administration, and allows the federal government to begin enforcing gender quotas among clergy in religious institutions. As my very astute and well-educated readers may already know, in 1994 Pope John Paul II infallibly affirmed that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to ordain women. Therefore, any women 'ordained' by civil mandate would automatically be null and void. The woman 'priestess' would in reality be nothing more than a vested laywoman. Whenever said 'priestess' confects the Eucharist, that confection would be invalid and non-existent. Thus the bread and the wine would remain just that -- bread and wine. While the bishop who 'ordained' her might be able to be forgiven with confession, because he was legally forced to do it against his will, parishioners would have to abstain from any mass offered by such a 'priestess' or risk committing both idolatry and blasphemy by adoring a 'host' that has not been consecrated, and is thus not really an Eucharistic 'host.'
So the end result would be this. Mass at St. Anyone's Church would be offered at 8 AM and 10 AM. St. Anyone's has two priests, a male and a female. Mass at the male priest time would be packed wall to wall, while mass at the female priestess time might only have one or two pews filled at most (these are the dissident 'spirit of Vatican II' Catholics). But to make matters worse, suppose the male priest at St. Anyone's Church is transferred somewhere else. Than the parishioners at St. Anyone's have no place to go for mass in their town. Some will drive an hour to find another parish, most will not. Thus faithful Catholics will be deprived of the sacraments, while dissident Catholics will be free to blaspheme and commit idolatry at will in Catholic parishes across the United States.
Theoretically, we should have first amendment protection, and the Supreme Court justices will likely toss this case out and give the Obama administration a blistering opinion that will shame Obama beyond imagination. However, in this republic there are no guarantees. Anything can happen, and we are talking about the same branch of government that gave us Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. So based on historical precedence -- anything goes!
8 comments:
At least it isn't as bad as Frederick II mandating the number of candles that can be used on an altar...
Well, I have heard about Catholic churches needing to make their altar steps wheelchair-accessible to comply with building codes...
Unfortunately Sir Knight, I do believe that there are a lot of lay catholics who wouldn't be bothered with a "priestess". Maybe that's just my country, but I get the feeling there are church-goers who aren't as faithful to the Church as one might hope.
I'm astonished there are people who honestly think ordaining women will increase mass attendance. Or maybe these women just want to make jobs out of the priesthood?
Sadly you are right. Many lay Catholics in North America are so poorly educated in the Catholic faith that they actually think female priests are a good idea.
In reality however, 'ordaining' women will actually INCREASE the priest shortage rather than decrease it. This is because the women 'ordained' won't really be priests. They will be vested laywomen with white collars. None of them can legitimately celebrate mass, yet the dioceses will be legally forced to hire them and let them practice. So that would mean local dioceses would have less money to go around to hire real (male) priests. Thus the number of (validly ordained) priests in any given diocese would actually decrease.
What may happen if this should come to pass is that a 'Patriotic' Church will arise in the United States as it has in China. It will be comprised of bishops who will ordain women. The true Church comprised of faithful bishops will be driven underground.
Personally I see this (along with being against the teachings of the church) to be just another step in a government's plan to have total control of its people. Its time to wake up.
Judicial review is not constitutional, nor has it ever been ratified by a law. The real battle here needs to be against the concept and practice of judicial review. It is nothing less than a repudiation of democracy.
I would add that this whole issue arises from a mistaken concept, popularized in the 1960's from behavioral psychology, that gender differences are culturally created.
Since the 60's, we have expanded our knowledge of genetics and the scientific evidence is in favor of gender differences being more biological than environmental. We should use current science to combat outdated 1960's false beliefs.
God chose the disciplines and they were MEN, not WOMEN. Women in this country are always trying to compete and be better than men. Its not going to happen. We are women. We are differnt than men.
Women do women things and men do men things. Stop trying to change the rules of the Catholic Church!!
Post a Comment