Religion reporting is often unintentionally funny and this article is no exception. Reporting on a San Diego woman having her first play-acting attempt at Mass.
A Roman Catholic canon says only baptized men may be ordained.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not taken a formal position on the issue, but three of the American women who say they are ordained priests received letters from diocese officials warning that they had chosen to excommunicate themselves.
Well I guess that they mean by "A Roman Catholic canon" is that canon law talks about baptize males when it come to ordination. Though of course this is not the source of the injunction.
I had a good laugh about the statement that the USCCB has not taken a formal position on the issue. As much as I might critique the Bishop’s conference from time to time this simply is not true. The idea that a bishop’s conference could come up with their own position on a now settled issue just proves the total ignorance of most religion reporting on the Catholic Church.
One of the sad thing about these women besides their confusion and misunderstanding of the Church is that they are going to end up depriving people of the sacraments. Those that attend their "masses" will not receive the Eucharist, will receive not blessing, and will basically be deprived of the source and summit of the Church – the Eucharist.
Maybe the USCCB has taken an informal position on this issue?
“A Roman Catholic cannon”
What kind of weirdo vague wording is that? Sounds more like a weapon than any kind of law. The reporter was not even trying to cover his complete ignorance as to what a “cannon” even means. Even the grammar is goofy. It would be like saying “An American Constitution says …”
From that sentence alone we get the impression the reporter has been talking to artillery weapons housed in the Vatican.
And I love the typically American ploy of putting poll numbers next to Church statements or teachings in order to cast them in the light of being behind the times (and therefore in need of reformation).
This is one instance when we would gladly be “Left Behind”.
Has anyone put together to two facts that, if you believe the Church is a democracy, that would make it the oldest functioning democracy still in existence?
It is not a democracy! It is a monarchy with a Lord, a Prime Minister, and deputy ministers. Our bumper stickers say “Jesus is Lord!” and not “Vote Jesus! Four more years!” or “Sidhartha/Mohammed in 2008!”
Sheesh. What maroons.
StubbleSpark, if you search for “canon” at M-W.com, you will see that the word canon (with one n) can mean “a provision in canon law,” which means that the reporter’s wording was entirely correct.
What does the Antiochon and Alexandrian canons have to say about the ordination of woman?
NY Times writer
“StubbleSpark, if you search for “canon” at M-W.com, you will see that the word canon (with one n) can mean “a provision in canon law,” which means that the reporter’s wording was entirely correct.”
I called it weirdo and vague, actually.
“A canon” is like referencing “an amendment” or “a law”. A journalist should refrain from putting on airs by referencing the word “canon” without saying WHICH canon in WHAT legal document because the end result is the reporter looks lazy and even incompetent.
“Canon Law says” is far more commonly used because it is both accurate and does not beg the questions that naturally arise when the indefinite article “a” is placed in front of something that is important enough to be treated definitely.
You see writing like this when dealing with bad translations from Japanese, for example, where there are no articles.
Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe the writer of this article is either a poor translator nor a non-native speaker of English.
Comments are closed.