Here is part of a Boston Globe ineterview with Cardinal O’Malley.
Q: I was wondering, following up on that. Setting aside your obligation to accept of course the prohibition of women as priests, whether you find the rationale for that doctrine compelling, and what would happen to the Catholic Church were it to be changed?
O’MALLEY: Well, to me it’s a matter of faith. The church’s teaching goes back to the time of Christ and the apostles, and it’s not something that we can change. If I could have the opportunity to say to our Lord, "Well, you know we really need that women priest, it would be so much easier for the church if you changed this for us." But we believe there are certain things that are givens. And this is one of the things that we believe is a given. And in the church we don’t divide the world into warring genders and different factions. We see that everyone had different gifts that they bring to the church. A woman like Mother Teresa is more important than any priest or bishop that I can think of. And the contributions of women in the church; where would the church be? Most of our educations programs and health care institutions are run by our Catholic women, Catholic religious women. I see that it is difficult in today’s climate, and it’s not politically correct, and it’s a place certainly where our faith bumps up against the popular culture, but it’s a place where I think we need to do a better job of trying to get people to understand and accept what the church’s teaching is.
Q: Could that change? How deep is it?
O’MALLEY: Two thousand years deep.
It’s four thousand years deep. Ancient Israel never had any women priests either.
It’s nice to see an American bishop simply accept a teaching and defend it, rather than make arguments and try to undermine the authority behind the teaching.
Best. Cardinal. Ever. With the possible exception of Rigali!
And they say the MSM has no agenda. I am impressed with how adroitly he handled the initial question and subsequent follow up, (of the same question rephrased.) I shudder to think of how many pages the response would have run had the question been posed to Mahony, Gumbleton, McCarrick, et. al.
He is very articulate in answering the question, yet it is as if the interviewer never listened to a single thing he said – but just rolled his eyes and moved on to, “Could that change?”
“O’Malley: Two thousand years deep.”
Two thumbs up.
“Best. Cardinal. Ever.”
What a loving response to a potentially volital question. The Boston archdiocese is blessed.
The Boston Globe doesn’t get it and obstinately refuses to get it. When it comes to the Church’s explanations of her teachings, the Globe is intentionally deaf and blind.
The Boston Globe is a bigoted, anti-Catholic rag.