There is another line of thinking with this. If a man impersonates a priest, it's a serious problem. If a woman impersonates a priest, it's silliness, much like putting on a kangaroo suit, bouncing up and down and expclaiming "I'm a kangaroo!!! I'm a kangaroo!!!"

Refusing to excommunicate the poor delusional woman points out the sheer ludicrousness of what she's doing.

Why does the Archdiocese of Boston keep popping up in the news all the time?

"I've always seen my role as to stay within the church and to push the boundaries"

Luther also had the idea to change the Church from within originally and he ended up just starting his own church (after changing the Bible, of course).

I swear some churches should use Van Halen's "Here I go Again on my Own" in their liturgies.

That is from the band Whitesnake, not Van Halen. I am a scrup about Rock facts...kinda like liturgy!

Andrew, OP

Just for the sake of argument--not that I believe this should or would or could ever happen--but it seems to me that IF God were now calling these women to be priests, the activists wouldn't be able to hear that genuine call, because they are too busy loudly dictating terms to God to listen to him.

These women are shooting themselves and their cause in the foot. They will never be anything but a circus sideshow in church history. If they couldn't get Paul VI in the Roaring 70's to ordain women, they most certainly won't persuade B16 to do so, especially when they are using blatant acts of rebellion against the church to make their silly point. I don't know if there's a direct causal relation btw the ordination of women in the ECUSA and their current suicidal decline, but there has to be something about ECUSA's refusal to honor ancient tradition that has lead them to this embarrassing lowpoint in their history. I say that, by the way, as a former Episcopalian.

PNP

I think the key phrase is "she separated herself from the church by her own action." The clear implication is that she is excommunicated. The Cardinal may or may not be correct, but I don't think this particular instance implies spinelessness.

The real question is whether her action automatically makes her Episcopalian.

She could and should be excommunicated for the heresy of maintaining that it is possible for women to receive Holy Order. (But that would require backbone.)

Just out of sheer curiosity, does the fact that she participated under a pseudonym not invalidate the ordination? Not that she was ordained or is a priest/ess; I'm just curious as to whether participating under false pretences invalidates the thing.

My first thought was that she should be forced to change her baptismal name from Jean Marie to "Tool of Satan". But that's just me...

Seriously, this woman will probably join one of the neo-Gnostic groups that are springing up. Soon she can get in touch with her Sacred Feminine(tm) and all that pseudo-Christian crapola. It gives me the willies that her plan was to "stay within the church and push the boundaries". I'm glad she's gone.

Is there something in the Boston water supply that causes such a degenerative spinal condition among its religious leaders? There is no question that Cardinal O'Malley is photogenically appealling, but is that the only criteria now for a shepherd of the Church? Or did Jesus not demand some stronger stand against the Gates of Hell?

...much like putting on a kangaroo suit, bouncing up and down and expclaiming "I'm a kangaroo!!! I'm a kangaroo!!!

If a woman were to do this and be kidding, it would be silliness. If the woman actually thought she was a kangaroo, she would probably be committed to a mental hospital.

These women aren't kidding about being "priestesses", they think they're the genuine article. That said, I think they need to be excommunicated just so they know that the Bishops aren't just laughing them off.

Sure she is excommunicated by leaving the Church of her own accord. But it would not hurt to underline that with an official excommunication from the bishop.

And then, have a trench dug around her house and filled crocodiles...

That would be best.

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that a priest must be ordained by a bishop. Was she ordained by a genuine Roman Catholic bishop?

If she was, then she is a priest forever, whether we like it or n.

If she wasn't ordained, then this is a tempest in a teapot. Easy to ignore.

pb,

That is incorrect. Like all sacraments proper matter is required. It does not matter whether someone is a priest they still can not concecrate for example Kool Aid.

A valid Bishop can not give a women Holy Orders because she is not the proper subject of the sacrament

If women could be ordained the Church would do it, whether a Bishop with valid Holy Orders is involved just does not matter in this situation.

I can easily see that proper rites should be observed. No prob.

But I am very curious. Was she "ordained" by a Roman Catholic Bishop, recognized by Rome?

Thank you for clarifying that, Jeff.

Apparently the Catholic Church in Boston is riddled with liberal Protestant moles for news stories here make it seem her unCatholic and heretical activities were blatant and well known yet she kept moving up Church ladders. Whoever was behind her doing the pushing should also be fired. Even under Cardinal O'Malley--who seems basically decent and orthodox--this archdiocese continues to be ravaged by apostasy, heresy, and moral decadence. Maybe Jesuit B.C. and Weston School of anti-Catholic theology is behind a lot of this because they have long since become trashers of anything traditionally orthodox Catholic and yet seem to have a corrupt undue influence here with ex-priests (like Thomas Groome a bigshot there) at BC leading the rebellious parade.

The problem with BC is that it is a university, and at universities, professors get tenure, and once they get tenure, it's almost impossible to be rid of them. Does anyone else remember how miserable it was when they tried to get rid of that radical nutbar feminist, Mary Daly? They finally found an excuse to fire her, and she sued the school for violating her tenure. They had to settle out of court.

BC was also sued for failing to uphold state law regarding homosexuals and "discrimination". Father Leahy has been doing his best to hold the line on this issue, but they're up against the state house. Once the homosexual clubs got recognition, they promptly began running wild, and the school is doing everything it can to restrain them, but it's hard to discipline them when the state is on their side.

The point is this: BC may have its problems, but the real problem is the ultra-secular, ultra-progressive government. The Church in the Boston area is full of dedicated and hardworking Priests and religious, but they are trying to work in the middle of a sea of progressive secularism. It's not easy, and I am surprised at how well they've done so far.

Boston is not a complete mess. They do have some off the wall, heretical stuff going on there. However, they also have many orthodox parishes. I'm not sure what the Cardinal's strategy is here, but I think he is cleaning house in a slow and discrete way. He's made leaps and bounds in cleaning up the seminary!

if you ask me, marchant just loves limelight and cant get it any other way, along with the rest of newly ordained by what bishop????. i am waiting to see the Lord walk out of the sky and will all die of fright.....

Observation from the Left Coast.
Yes, Boston has problems. It is a large archdiocese. But the present Cardinal-Archbishop has only been on duty here a short time, while many of the problems, and Marchant, were there before his arrival.

If any person, no longer in an organization, claimed to still be in the organization and make statements contrary to its beliefs and wishes, would the newspaper print it and treat it with seriousness?