I was mostly happy to hear about the lineup that the NYT got for their Papal Visit blog, especially with their recruiting Amy Welborn. Well there is one contributor they didn’t announce ahead of time. Feminist theologian and all around dissenter Catholic Rosemary Radford Ruether posted today. The post is so typical that I could have wrote it as a parody in my sleep.
You know that lack of priests is all due to not ordaining women and dropping the requirement for celibacy and how the sexual abuse crisis is all because of repressed sexuality. If only they could get married they wouldn’t abuse predominantly pubescent boys. And of course women’s ordination is all about the current Pope’s opinion.
To say such nonsense you have to ignore that vocations are on the upswing and that sexual abuse is orders of magnitude worse in institutions like public schools. She writes that they are "taught to view sex as the opposite of sacredness." I guess she considers that sexuality reserved only to marriage ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring as not being sacred. But fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts which are inherently sterile are sacred. The sacredness of an act deals with the context of the act and sex within an act that is inherently evil can never be sacred.
But then again you can’t argue with someone that would say something like "Once the mythology about Jesus as Messiah or divine Logos, with its traditional masculine imagery, is stripped off, the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels can be recognized as a figure remarkably compatible with feminism."