Jeffrey Miller

Well after just reviewing Catholic Priesthood and Women, here is a unfortunate story.

Sudbury’s Marie Evans Bouclin has become the second woman in Canada to be ordained a Roman Catholic priest.

Bouclin was one of three women called to the priesthood by Bishop Patricia Fresen at an ordination ceremony at West Hill United Church in Scarborough on Sunday afternoon.

I am shocked? Shocked I tell you. Does this person care nothing for tradition? I mean where is the riverboat? Up to now the tradition of women’s riverboat faux ordinations has been quite firm. Though she did manage to keep the tradition of an unbelievably ugly stole.

Along with Bouclin, Cheryl Bristol and Mary Ellen Robertson of the United States were called to the priesthood by Fresen, one of only three female bishops worldwide.

Strange, I though it was Christ’s role to do this calling? I’ll have to check a concordance for Fresen. Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe had the following comments.

Plouffe is on record recently as saying that, while he respects Bouclin for her faith, ordaining women breaks from the teachings of the church.

Plouffe said he would not consider Bouclin’s ordination valid, because only men can be ordained.

Bouclin is optimistic that will change as a result of Sunday’s service.

The Pope has called an emergency synod at the Vatican because of Bouclin’s ordination. It has forced their hand and now everything must change because of "Sunday’s service." It seems most women wannabe priests see themselves as the Rosa Parks of the Catholic Church, that they are taking a brave stand defying inequality. I do wonder if they make a vow of obedience to their women "bishop?" Not that obedience is exactly their strong streak.

The ceremony was filled with music and prayer. And while the liturgy was virtually the same as that heard every Sunday in traditional Roman Catholic churches, it was startling for some to hear it delivered by women.

Even more unusual was the sight of Fresen breaking bread and presiding over the mass.

Even more unusual was the sight of people receiving only bread and wine for Communion instead of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. The women’s priest movement, even though they don’t realize it, are just working to deprive people of the Eucharist.

VisionTV is preparing a documentary on Bouclin and why she has chosen to defy the Vatican.

How about a documentary on how she has chosen to defy the will of Christ and his Church?

From time to time I comment on just how misleading some headlines are in dealing with the Catholic Church. Here is the latest example of journalistic malpractice.

Loophole allows married clergy to become Catholic priests

The story is about ex-Episcopal priest Bill Lowe who was recently ordained as the writer says "by way of a little-known pastoral provision." Now I would truly like to know how the Holy See in 1980 creating the Pastoral Provision under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a loophole. Last I checked loopholes are not created on purpose. Could he mean that somebody who wanted to be a married Catholic priest could first spend a long career as an Episcopal priest, have a family, and then at an appropriate time join the Catholic Church and then apply via the Pastoral Provision to become a married Catholic priest?

Mahony said people should view the ordination as an exception and not an indication the church may change its requirements and bring in more married priests.

Many of the parishioners weren’t listening. Worried about the shortage of priests, they viewed the ordination as a symbol.

“I think it’s opening a door for married priests in the future,” said Michelle Paschen of Camarillo. “And yes, I think priests should be married.”

John Blankenship, 68, of Camarillo went further.

“I think it’s great that we’re moving forward,” he said. “Hopefully that will eventually lead to women being priests.”

Ah there is a stunning bit of logic. A dispensation from a discipline will lead to the change of a dogmatic teaching. You also have wonder if the married priest advocates have ever read or listened to what some of the seventy some married priests in the United States say on this subject.

Via Ignatius Insight and Carl Olson a story that always runs just before Pentecost. Yes, one on the Rainbow Sash Movement.

According to Joe Murray, US Convener for the RSM, individual parishioners have taken it upon themselves to share their hosts with ribbon-wearing churchgoers, acts which infuriated the Bishops who could do nothing about it.

"Out of fear and their own homophobia," says Murray, "Church officials have chosen to go against their own teaching, that individual conscience is paramount in guiding the individual to spirituality. These ill-advised bishops cannot possibly know our hearts when they deny us communion. They are desecrating the Holy Eucharist by making it a weapon of division and exclusion.

Let’s play spot the contradiction.

• You can’t know our hearts, but we know you do this out of fear and homophobia.
• Conscience is king, except your conscience if it leads to denying us Communion. In that case conscience is a peasant to be trampled down by us.
• You are causing division and us wearing sashes and disrupting Masses is not.

"When we wear a rainbow sash, we are honestly expressing who we are. Bringing our honesty into the Church is a way of asking the Bishops to include all the Children of God into the Body of Christ, and to stop thinking they can make decisions for God. These Bishops need to be reminded they are pastors, while they call themselves Princes. Try finding that in the scriptures!"

Approval of homosexual acts – try finding that in scripture! Though the princes thing is rather silly. Do bishops really call themselves princes? I have never heard the term used except in a more general fashion by people other than bishops, though the term is used most often in modern times to refer to the Cardinals.

Murray questions why the Church hierarchy, which sets anti-gay and anti-war policies, gives communion to soldiers in uniform, but denies the Body of Christ to gays. "Who did Jesus turn away?" he asks.

In the Eucharistic discourse in John 6 many people turned themselves away. They could not accept what Jesus taught and so left. Rainbow sashers are just less honest. They do not accept what the Church teaches and do not go away. It is still primary upon the person who knows they are not in Communion with the Church to turn themselves away.

… They are still demanding a 13th century lifestyle where they are the arbiters of right and wrong. They need to stop talking about us, and start talking to us. My partner of 27 years and I agree, they are hopelessly out of touch."

Why specifically the 13th century when this has been something taught by the Church through all centuries. And if you are gong to use an argument by century where referring to an older century is negative then we can say they want a 0th century lifestyle lived by some homosexual Pagan Romans and Greeks.

Carl Olson adds in his post:

Murray is right: when it comes to putting a stamp of approval on homosexual acts and the gay lifestyle (not to mention abortion, euthanasia, divorce, contraception, pre-marital sex, adultery, etc., etc.), the Catholic Church is out of touch. Which is one of many reasons I am a Catholic. I am, however, puzzled as to why Murray is a Catholic.

Yes the Church is out of touch with the modern world, though in touch with the Holy Spirit which prevents her from not being synchronized with the errors of the times. They always get it exactly backwards. It is the modern world which is out of touch with the Church, the mystical body of Christ.

A couple of years ago I had some of my own ideas for disordered sashes.

• Adulterous Pride Sashes – To bring the gifts, witnesses, and the challenge of adulterers into the heart of the Church. Sashes could be made up of a string of shattered wedding rings or pictures of their latest soul mate.
• Pride Pride Sashes – Why not be prideful that you are prideful. To often prideful people are oppressed by the reading and homilies demanding that they conform and be humble. This talk of Jesus humbling himself and coming in the form of a servant is hurtful and non-caring when it comes to the prideful. Bruce’s suggestion of self-portraits and awards is great for this. Sash’s could be made with plastic pockets like what comes in wallets to display your greatest possession – yourself.
• Contraception Pride Sashes – How about all those Catholics that are oppressed by a Church that just won’t roll with the times. Come on the majority of Catholics practice contraception so while they are hardly ever oppressed by homilies on this subject. The Catechism and Church teaching still hasn’t given in on this. The sashes could be made out of birth control pill containers strung together with condoms.
• Uncharitable Pride Sashes – For those who do not have a charitable disposition and are imposed on when some busy-body usher shoves a offering basket under their nose they can have a sash that says it all. The sash would come with lettering saying "Charity begins at home – my home and that’s it."

And if sashes are fine for those who dissent from church teaching how about those who are upset with liturgical mediocrity?

• Gregorian Chant Sash Movement – In a show of solidarity with the past and to dissent from OCP and GIA sashes could be made of Gregorian Chant CD attached together with mini-organ clips.

I have thought of a new one to add this year.

• Homophobia Pride Sashes – for those actual homophobes that are mad at what the Church teaches about "intrinsic dignity of each person " and that "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs." Time and time again the Church teaches that this type of disordered reaction to same-sex attraction is quite sinful and homophobes are forced to stay in the closet and not come out proclaiming their hatred. Yes homophobes do need their own sashes to protest this divisive discrimination.