An alternative response
Kelly Clark posted on the Oregon priestess Toni Tortorilla and then linked to a response by Archbishop John Vlazny in The Catholic Sentinel. As I commented on her site - I found his statement to be rather lame. For one thing reading, it if I didn't know better, I would think the problem with the ordination was that it was wrong because it occurred "without the proper authorization from church authorities." You would have no idea from his message that if just wasn't possible to ordain women in the first place. Though to be fair he did forthrightly say "there was no ordination of a Roman Catholic priest at Zion United Church of Christ in Gresham on July 28"
Kelly though in response to my comment wrote another post where she imagines Archbishop John Viazny's alternative comment.
Known as 
Atheists allow women to be leaders in our community. Why? because its simply immoral to discriminate against someone because of their gender.
Funny, going against the dictates of bible leads to superior morality.
Atheists allow women to be leaders in our community.
What a coincidence! So does the Bible! In fact, maybe the "atheists" do because of historical biblical Christianity!
But I think that you are not interested in knowing what a sacrament really is. What a shame. Especially in Baltimore.
its [sic] simply immoral to discriminate against someone because of their [sic] gender.
That is why I always use the ladies' room when in public.
Funny, going against the dictates of [the B]ible leads to superior morality.
Nah, usually just to a superiority complex. Check out Genesis 2-3. That would be the second and third quite short chapters in the first book, you know.
By the way, the word that you want is ethics, not "morality." Otherwise, your sentence would be completely impossible unless you belonged to a non-scriptural religion.
I read Kelly's 'alternative comment'-way to go! Wish we had Bishops who could write like that! More 'in-you-face', and less being afraid of 'offending' anyone!
Jeff, I have to, rather unusually, disagree about his response being lame. His response is carefully worded not to cause more scandal than is necessary, but by no means is it less than firm.
"there was no ordination..." it's in the middle of his response but there's not softness to that wording.
"... but also by such an act leaves our church community." This sounds like a warning about it being necessary to declare them excommunicated if they persist in their foolishness. There can be a case made that he is in fact stating they are excommunicated already (I think the term is ex post facto but i could be way wrong on the term)
Your complaint is about his saying "without the proper authorization" but by now everyone *should* know that authorization isn't coming, since the word from the top has been "the church has no authority to ordain women" (-- J.P.t.G. I think)
His approach is not as "in your face" as some could wish but I think it is quite a far cry from lame, and even a couple of steps away from soft.
The Archbishop's letter could have been stronger, but at least he said something and did firmly state that the ordination WASN'T. A matter of style, maybe?
Regarding bishops who speak "from the hip" when necessary, Irishgirl, have you not listened to Bishop Tobin? Come and hear! No WAY am I charitable enough to give our bishop to other dioceses, (Rhode Island so obviously needs him) but google away, he's a joy to read!
Hmmm...Come to think of it, the tax threat that appeared over our heads may be a reason why the Archbishop doesn't speak in terms of gender in his letter. Lots of organizations might cry "Discrimination!" at him!
My bishop's name is John Vlazny, not Viazny.
Wishful thinking seems to be the only kind of theology those who pimp priestesses are capable of.
Chester,
To some extent I agree with you. What I think is missing from the Archbishop's statement is anger...righteous anger. And, yes, clarity. Nowhere did he say flat out that "ordination" of women no matter what is impossible.
And while I'd love to believe that by now everybody outta know this, common everyday conversation with people from priests to lay folks tells me this isn't the case. ('Course, I live in Boston.)
Danby,
I apologize for the misspelling. It was my error, not Jeff's. I gather you belong to the Portland archdiocese. Please know that I'm not stomping on your Pastor at all, and that he and all his flock are in my prayers. I know what it's like to see a bishop hung out to dry and I never meant to do that. (Did I tell you I'm from Boston?)
Hoodlum,
Hey, guess what? The Church not only allows women to lead the Church, but it's dogma. Her name is Mary. Mother of the Church, Queen of all Creation, Mother of God, Queen of the Apostles, Queen of all Saints...can't get much higher than that.
Priests are her servants.
Gee, women like St. Catherine of Sienna -- scolding popes and cardinals -- and Mother Teresa were not "leaders" in their "community".
And do the atheists out there know who their "leaders" are?