AmericanPapist Comments
One problem is how language gets used (not IS used, GETS used) in these matters. The media's reporting of this as an "ordination" sets the story up immediately as factually inaccurate and editorially suspect. If one wants to write about a "ceremony," or "rite," or an "event that the women are CALLING ordination," then do so. But to lack the journalistic integrity to report the FACT - it was, BY DEFINITION, NOT an ordination - is disgraceful. No self-respecting columnist or editor would allow an article to be so factually incorrect about, for example, a Muslim "mass," or (more mundane) a Boston Red Sox soccer match.
There was an ordination of some women to a role they call priesthood into an organization that they claim is part of the Roman Catholic Church (you know, the one led by the pope). But, of course, the ordination is not recognized by the Catholic Church, nor does the Church regard them as women priests.
A reporter's job is to report what happened and not adopt language that would indicate taking a side. Since the Womenpriests call it an ordination, the reporter should call it that, too. Still, the reporter should also go out of his or her way to explain that those who make the decisions in the Catholic Church don't recognize this event. What gets tricky is how far a reporter goes to explain this difference and how the women priests are no longer part of the Catholic Church -- no matter how much they claim otherwise.
GetReligion has a good critique of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch story, which is far worse than the AP account, in my opinion. All are linked to from here:
http://www.catholicana.com/2007/...th-2-
women.html
This is getting to be the standard in these cases. I used think about calling up, writing in, etc and protest that you can NOT call them "priests" (especially since they are not guys), "ordained", or "Catholic" but I tire of the wanton stupidity.
It is all we can expect.
They are reporters, after all.
Commenting by HaloScan
