Don't forget they're Catholic nuns. That makes them SADISTIC "women".
They are "un-wimmin". That is the term as decreed by the MOTHER GODDESS.
Are these (obviously angry 
) sisters the same nuns who, according to Mort Kondracke, are po'd at the late JPII for not ordaining them as priestesses?
Am I the only one who noticed that the only gal in the photo not smiling has a shirt with the letters " N E W Y O R K" on them?
VERY ACCURATE PICTURE!
What is the reason for postings like this? This kind of snide sarcasm only serves to foster hatred against those who hold mistaken opinions about the Church. Why all the hatred? Seriously, why is there so much hatred on the St. Blogs from people who represent themselves as being filled with the love of Christ?
'Hatred'? Lighten up, fellow. This is called 'satire'.
I think those other females refer to themselves as womyn, if I remember my 70s feminist terminology correctly, because women is a misogynist term that defines womyn in terms of men. I would be the females in your picture are women, not womyn.
NPR had some money quotes this morning. My favorite was someone wishing this pope would have helped women to have "greater participation in the church."
I guess this fine Catholic had never heard of the 750,000 women religious that serve in this church, not to mention the countless seas of women taking care of every detail in parish life.
To be honest, my greatest fear about the ordination of women is that men will flee the church entirely. As a young, single female I can tell you we need *less* feminization in the church. It's already hard enough to get a decent date.
Gosh, those women sure look triumphal!
Yes, I know what you mean about only feminists being women . . . at least according to feminists. For somebody who isn't really a woman I've sure been pregnant a lot.
Call it satire if you wish. It is snide and it seeks to ridicule. If that is love to you, you read a different Gospel.
I'm one of the joyful, but oppressed and excluded women. Dang, I wish I was smarter. I wish I realize what the womyn do - that the Church that Christ founded on the Rock-Peter is seeking to keep me from heaven.
Ooops guess my love of satire puts me in the snide category too.... ah well!
Wait a second.... you wouldn't possibly be being (gasp) JUDGEMENTAL by calling Mark snide would you? EEEEK the cardinal sin!!!!
Mark, Mark, Mark.
How many times have I explained this to you? Leftists, feminists, and modernists are allowed to say anything they choose, because they're Enlightened and we're not. We're not allowed to satirize them for the same reason. It's perfectly simple when you understand the principle behind it.
It's funny that they feel that way, since the other group that's famous for making the same claim is adolescents.
Call it satire if you wish. It is snide and it seeks to ridicule. If that is love to you, you read a different Gospel.
My patron saint (whose name I have chosen as my internet alias) was inclined to disagree, and I'm pretty sure he read the same gospel I read....
Great photo! Thanks for posting it.
When it was noon, Elijah taunted them: "Call louder, for he is a god and may be meditating, or may have retired, or may be on a journey. Perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."
1 Kings 18:27
St. Elijah the Satirical, ora pro nobis.
catholic:
Why is it that the MSM and feminists, including those who may be Catholic, assume to speak for me, a woman, about how I feel about this pope?
They didn't ask me and it was uncharitable to treat me as persona non grata. They don't speak for me and if they claim they are, they are wrong. What Gospel are they reading?
And why are you likely to call me snide? I'm just using your reasoning.
+J.M.J+
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cummin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone.
Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.
Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness.
So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just: but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
What unloving and snide sarcasm, that seeks to ridicule and fosters hatred toward others! All from one who presents himself of being full of the love of Christ. He must read a different gospel.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
And no, I'm not justifying unloving sarcasm by citing the example of Christ. I'm not Christ, after all, so I can't claim to imitate Him perfectly.
But He did say things that were 10X as harsh as Mark's post, yet He was not unloving in doing so. I guess love doesn't always mean being "nice" (however one defines niceness). Charitable, yes, but not necessarily "nice."
In Jesu et Maria,
Chris, I doubt the mainstream media presumed to speak for you. They voiced their opinions from their perspectives. If you feel wronged, you can correct that by letting your opinion be known. Can you do it without resorting to ridicule? If not, how many wrongs are necessary to right the initial wrong?
BTW, Chris, I did not call you snide. I referred to some of the remarks here as snide.
To the person who condemned me as having committed a sin by judging a person in my initial post, please note that calling a remark snide and sarcastic is not the same as judging a person snide. It is a small difference, but it is a difference in kind that makes all the difference.
Mark,
You writing gives me a much needed laugh and a day when I've heard some bad news (not about the new Pope, I'm estatic about that!)
Why on earth must some posters be such kill-joys over a little sense of humor? Talk about dour. That sort of thing drove me away from the Church. Too serious and sour faced.
The triumphant joy on the faces of my fellow women just made my day.
To the person who condemned me as having committed a sin by judging a person in my initial post, please note that calling a remark snide and sarcastic is not the same as judging a person snide. It is a small difference, but it is a difference in kind that makes all the difference.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as "spin".
To the person who condemned me as having committed a sin by judging a person in my initial post, please note that calling a remark snide and sarcastic is not the same as judging a person snide. It is a small difference, but it is a difference in kind that makes all the difference.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as "spin".
+J.M.J+
catholic writes:
>>>please note that calling a remark snide and sarcastic is not the same as judging a person snide. It is a small difference, but it is a difference in kind that makes all the difference.
Well, it's awfully easy to slip right over the fine line you draw. For instance, in your first post you wrote:
>>>Why all the hatred? Seriously, why is there so much hatred on the St. Blogs from people who represent themselves as being filled with the love of Christ?
Sounds for all the world like you're saying, "You all claim to be filled with the love of Christ, but are really full of so much hatred"
Is that a judgment on us?
Then you wrote:
>>>If that is love to you, you read a different Gospel.
Now it sounds like you're saying: "You people are not following the Gospel of Jesus Christ like I am, because I read the Gospel and you obviously don't."
Is that a judgment on us?
Sure sounds like one.
In Jesu et Maria,
ooooooh dear I "Condemned" you? I guess sarcasm is lost on you as well.... "you wouldn't possibly be...." is a condemnation?
Yoiks.
Ah well. Sent out this link to a large group, hope your hits go up Mark!
Excellent taunting Elijah quote, btw Scrappy....
Daniel:
It isn't spin. It is a proper English reading of the nouns used in the sentence. The spin comes from asserting that calling an idea snide is equivalent to calling a person snide. They are not equivalent.
Rosemarie:
>>Sounds for all the world like you're saying, "You all claim to be filled with the love of Christ, but are really full of so much hatred"
And yet that is not what I said.
I asked a question. Why are hateful remarks are made by people who presume to represent their views as synonymous with the truth of God? I suppose there are many ways one can "interpret" the question, but I really intended it as a question and not an accusation. If I wanted to accuse you, I would do it directly.
>>Now it sounds like you're saying: "You people are not following the Gospel of Jesus Christ like I am, because I read the Gospel and you obviously don't."
And yet that is not what I said.
In fact, your interpretation is quite different from what I wrote. I never accused people of not reading the Gospel. I made the observation that if you interpret ridicule and sarcasm as love, then we read different Gospels. Or to be clearer, we interpret the Gospel differently. If you think that is an attack and not a statement of fact, then you should plumb your conscience for the reason it seemed that way.
To "call me snide":
When one accuses another of having committed a cardinal sin, it is usually considered a condemnation. Apparently your buffoonery is lost on me.
Catholic:
Which is more serious: a) Telling a huge percentage of women "You don't count as women, or as thinking human beings, if you don't agree with me" or b) making fun of that arrogant attitude.
I choose a. Your handwringing about my note of satire would be more authentic if you had paused to acknowledge the disenfranchisement so casually practiced by the Maureen Dowds of the world as they pontificate about how Women regard this Pope.
Which is more correct: The initial wrong or the wrong committed to avenge it?
catholic;
You know Mark's original statement is just simply, a satirical way to make his point.
>This kind of snide sarcasm only serves to foster hatred against those who hold mistaken opinions about the Church. Why all the hatred?
I don't equate it with hatred.
You may have a point about the "snide sarcasm" being counter productive, although I don't think this post is anywhere near to ridiculing or humiliating anybody.
We could have an intersting discussion about the what should or should not be acceptable Christian humor, I'm serious, I've always wanted to discuss this ... but by saying "hatred" I think you are just blowing this out of proportion.
ElCapitan:
You may be right about "hatred" being out of proportion, though I'm not sure. I'm quite sensitive to divisive speech lately. We've had too much of it with the politics of last year, Teri Schaivo this year, and now the joyful wishes of some that Pope Benedict (figuratively speaking) garotte "liberal" or "progressive" Catholics, especially those in .......... (fill in your most loathed liberal diocese).
Your idea about discussing acceptable Christian humor is an interesting one.
catholic,
While I sympathize with your concern that:
the joyful wishes of some that
Pope Benedict (figuratively
speaking) garotte "liberal" or
"progressive" Catholics,
especially those in ..........
(fill in your most loathed
liberal diocese,
The fact is, Mark's satire of entrenched "enlightened" commentators' attitude is a horse of an entirely different color. You're comparing apples to oranges.
While combox warfare can tax anyone's faith and charity, humor can go a long way towards straightening thought and reintroducing common sense. There are entire institutions that would discount these "women" because they do not buy into the ideology of the day, which these institutions regard as truth. Mark's satire, reminiscent of G.K. Chesterton, reminds us of their absurdity.
BTW, you still haven't addressed Mark's point. Plan to? Or is questioning the integrity of every Christian commentor to this blog the only item on your agenda today?
"I'm quite sensitive to divisive speech lately."
Yes, I noticed that. I incline strongly toward divisiveness myself, and I'm so happy to have another divisive pope. In the interests of inclusion and tolerance, you'll observe, I'm using the word according to your meaning, that is, unwilling to accept the diktats of aggressive modernism and moral relativism. I must confess that I've never quite seen the point of a unity that is to be achieved by sweeping Church teachings under the rug and pretending that dissent on essential points of doctrine doesn't exist, or doesn't matter; but in the interests of even superficial cosmetic unity I don't mind adopting for the present your rather one-sided definition of the word "divisive".
Happy new divisive pope!
"A Holy Fool" commented that Mark's satire is reminiscent of Chesterton. I agree. The last sentence of Chesterton's book, Orthodoxy, is: "There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth."
+J.M.J+
>>>I made the observation that if you interpret ridicule and sarcasm as love, then we read different Gospels.
So when Jesus ridicules the Pharisees, is that not found in your Gospel?
Read His words again, the ones I quoted above (and all of Matthew 23). There is certainly an element of ridicule in them, especially when you consider the meaning of expressions like "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."
In Jesu et Maria,
So, satire is now un-Christian? Bad satire, then, must be downright demonic. I guess that means I'm going straight to hell.
catholic,
I get about 20 emails a day for discount vallium and various other medicinal products.
Would you like me to forward them to you?
Still can't figure out what NEW YORK is thinking...."gee- I missed the 11:00 tour and wound up here....my feet hurt....In 36 hours, somebody named catholic will get upset over this photo and the people commenting on it at CAEI....I feel empowered as a womyn....Would you PLEASE get your arm out of my face, Sister?"
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household.'"
We have the election of a new pope and we find ourselves faced with someone whose rigid, divisive, humorless, self-righteous morality seeks to control the thoughts and speech of others who disagree with him.
Did you think I was referring to BXVI?
Sheesh, "catholic", take a deep breath and start excercising those flabby smile muscles. Being a Catholic is a thing of joy!
Hmmm... if "catholic" can be the only "real" Catholic here, then I think I'll be....
Catholic,
I'm not Catholic, I'm Eastern Orthodox, and I have far more in common with the "divisive" Catholic folks on this thread than I ever will with the terminally oversensitive. Lighten up, man! There is nothing wrong with discerning the foolishness of a fool, or even commenting upon it. And Catholic Folks: accept heartfelt congratulations from this Orthodox on the election of a man who loves and serves our Lord Jesus Christ, as His Holiness obviously does. (And Memory Eternal to John Paul II.) We'll discuss the Great Schism some other time; but this is a time for joy.
Please. Let's be honest--to show these women and pretend they stand for "women" is an absolute lie. The Missionaries of Charity are one of the most conservative orders in the Church. Of COURSE they're going to be happy about Benedict. To suggest that they're somehow representative of women in general is deliberately misleading, and more than a little malicious. Or, to put it a different way, did your mother spend every Monday practicing "a day of shame"?
Isaac: "To put it a different way, did your mother spend every Monday practicing 'a day of shame'?"
Huh???? What on earth is a "day of shame"???? I'm just a silly girl, mind you - enlighten me as to this ancient venerable custom.
Hmm... let's not make fun of the New York girl shall we? She could have been distracted at the time the photog captured the shot...
This is no ancient or venerable custom, Kathleen, it's one of the practices of the Missionaries of Charity--one day of every week is observed as a "day of shame." It goes along with a spirituality that is not practiced by the 600 million Catholic women in the world. To suggest that four cheering Missionaries of Charity represent "women" is no different than to claim, for example, that Andrew Greeley represents "men."
The sisters who are members of the Missionaries of Charity are the ones who are doing God's work. They are the real women, not those idiot feminists who think that they are speaking for the rest of us.
Mark, I loved the satire, and it hit the spot, especially when the pack of wolves who want to be ordained as priestesses, are howling and baying for blood. They fully expected that when John Paul II died that they would have a new opportunity to foist their destruction upon the remainder of the Church.
I know many good women who are sisters from various orders. It does not matter if they are "conservative" when they are truly doing the Lord's work. However, the wolves who parade themselves as Catholic feminists are not doing the Lord's work when they are promoting abortion on demand and general euthanasia. I did not hear the wolves speaking up for a disabled woman who withstood 15 years of abuse before she was murdered. Their silence was deafening, and as such they have relegated themselves to the backwater.
Let them remain miserable and furious whilst the rest of us get on with the job of full participation in the Church, through our various roles. After all, we serve as lectors, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, parish assistants, sacramental coordinators, and yes the list of the way in which women serve the Lord is endless.
Serving the Lord means that we should not be seeking power. That is what the wolves do when they start their whinging and carry on about how they want to become priests. They do not get it, they cannot have what they want, because they are not called to that role. Women in leadership roles are anything but gentle at times, and they also lack compassion at appropriate times. So I am not interested in hearing such arguments that a woman is more compassionate at a time of death or illness. It is not true.
BTW I think that the lady in the New York jersey, is probably thinking about the money that she lost from betting on the wrong Cardinal to be Pope 
She probably made it a double whammy because she got the name wrong too
Paul S.: Yes, I noticed the label under the one less-than-happy face.
Isaac: The center of the photograph is a Missionaries of Charity nun exultant, yes. But I see a lot of "women" in that photograph who are not in habit who also look positively thrilled. I guess they must just be self-hating "archconservatives" as well, out of touch with the feelings of Real Catholic Women™. Excellent job making Mark's point again.
"catholic": To steal a line from The Princess Bride and your use of the word "hatred" -- "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Last I checked, hate involves "a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy." You seem to be using it as a synonym for "holds incorrect opinions and isn't afraid to say so." But I guess we're just not reading the same dictionary.
peace,
catholic - I do think that the MSM does intend to speak for me. Why - the words that they use. I haven't heard "Some women are disenfranchised" or "many women...", I hear "American women..." ----
We've made our opinions known, very loudly, but they turn a deaf ear.
Sorry - We're not taking it any more.
heh. maybe she placed a bet on Ratzinger first and withdrew it later... and now she's like... darn!! ;P
catholic wrote:
"To the person who condemned me as having committed a sin by judging a person in my initial post, please note that calling a remark snide and sarcastic is not the same as judging a person snide. It is a small difference, but it is a difference in kind that makes all the difference."
Then who was Mark ridiculing in his initial post? I didn't see him name *anybody*.
What he was ridiculing was an *attitude* which I think is free game (sort of like that you were doing)
"Yes, I noticed that. I incline strongly toward divisiveness myself, and I'm so happy to have another divisive pope."
My 15 year old daughter told me: "This Pope claims other religions are *deficient*!!!!". And I said: "The Pope is Catholic. He believes other religions haf a part of the truth, but not all of the truth. He believes the Catholic Church has the whole truth and is the most perfect way to worship our God. If this is the case, he must believe that other religions are "deficient" much like they believe *we* are deficient".
Wanted:
Replacement pope for Catholic Church. Must try to resolve complex modern crises by reference to cryptic, ancient, incomplete, self-contradictory and apocryphal writings. Must believe that a virgin had a baby. Must disparage homosexuals, even though significant numbers of co-workers are gay. Must assert that all other religions are false. Must believe that women are not qualified to be leaders in the organization and they must serve the men. Must believe himself to be infallible. Must be willing to stand up in expensive clothes in posh surroundings and declare himself "a simple, humble worker." Willingness to tolerate rape of children by co-workers a plus. Typing skills not required.
+J.M.J+
Wanted: trolls to visit and spew venom on Catholic blogs. Must believe that an erudite clergyman with more education that oneself is actually a "dope". Must desire a pope who is something other than Catholic. Must caricature Church teachings and insult the beliefs of over a billion people yet still believe oneself open-minded. Must be willing to make money by selling junk on Cafepress.com while bashing others for allegedly having more money than oneself. Willingness to shamelessly promote hate-filled products a plus. The smarts to realize that most posters here wouldn't buy such trash in a billion years not required.
In Jesu et Maria,
Pssst - I think mommy just called you home for beddytime.
LOL - pwned.
For you women there is just one reaction to the election of Ratzinger: leave the catholic church. Nothing else will make a change. Fight for you rights!! Don´t let them treat you as second class people.
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life within you...
...many disciples left that day.."
How divisive!! Couldn't they all just get along?
Heretic,
If you work really, really hard at it, you may someday post something that shows that you actually know what you are talking about.
Keep trying.
Seraphim,
Christ is Risen! Thank you for your joyful greetings. Through the prayers of the most Holy Theotokos may the day be hastened when Orthodox and Catholic Christians walk together again in full unity!
Stop the presses! Someone doesn't like our Church or our pope!!! How original. Luckily these individuals keep Jack Chick employed.
The Dowds of this world commit the error of using political terms like "conservative" and "liberal" in an effort to size up the new Pope's opinions.
That doesn't work.
Benedict 16 is a tradionalist, and as such, aims to apply the rules.
That's what Popes are supposed to do.
By sticking to the programme, by remaining constant and by citing tradition this Pope will attract new Catholics.
People crave a fixed moral framework and that is what this man is going to provide.
So what if he hasn,t the charisma of his predecessor.
If he plays his cards right he won't even need any!
I learned of a very small, but interesting detail about Benedict's life. Until recently he had lived in a humble apartment just outside the Vatican with his sister Maria. When she became ill he took it upon himself to look after her until her death.
He sets a VERY good example of compassion, but the media, of course, concentrate on his position concerning....you guessed it......gays!!
Well, speaking as another member of the underclass:
I am head over heels in love with Papa Benedict.
Perhaps I need my consciousness raised.
Thank you.
Daniel:
It's Dennis.
It isn't spin. It is a proper English reading of the nouns used in the sentence.
It's spin, and you attempt to defend it with more spin.
Admit it; you're just upset that orthodox Catholics aren't lying down and behaving like doormats. Get used to it.
Oh Rosemarie!!!!!LOL!
I love you baby!
+J.M.J+
Jim: Well, my post is a little less funny now that Mark removed the link "heretic" posted - but I'm glad he removed it anyway.
vogon poet: Thanks! You also taught a new word today: pwned.
(Yes, I admit my ignorance of that term. LOL!)
In Jesu et Maria,
Kasper: Granted: various people in various positions in the Church over time have not treated women (and other groups of people) well, or as Christ wanted them to. But I'll eat my bonnet if you can prove to me that Benedict XVI treats women as second-class citizens. Or that this is what the Catholic Church (via Her teachings) condones/recommends. Of course, we'd first have to agree on what constitutes second-class citizenship, but I really do think you'd be hard-pressed to prove your point. I'm curious how you came to your conclusion, and wonder how you would define "second-class citizenship."
Rosemarie: Never mind the missing link, your "ad" is still screamingly funny.
To those laud divisiveness:
I'll paraphrase Pope Benedict and St. Paul: Truth without Love is like a clanging gong.
Remember also the parable of the wheat and tares.
There is a difference between demarcation and divisiveness. The former sets boundaries; the latter seeks dissension and discord. I expect Pope Benedict to be strong on the former and practiced with Love. I expect the comboxes to continue to be filled with the latter.
peace
catholic,
Oh I see...by love you mean "that which make someone else *feel* good about themself." When viewed in that light I see you point.
You will have to forgive us cat. Most of us are still stuck on that old truth - love paradigm. Too many conservative popes in a row have dulled our skills in the modern vernacular.
RadFems have refused to acknowledge females who don't agree with them as women (or wommin) since Ellen Grasso was governor of CT. Anybody notice the recent flap when Susan Estrich tried to deny the womanly bona fides of journalist Charlotte Allen?
The V-chicks don't speak for me, either. I think Pope Benedict is a wonderful blessing for the Church.
No, Paul, you've got it wrong. It is you who are stuck in the current world view. Too many look at people and see sides when they should look at people and see Christ.
catholic is right...when we look at people, we should see Christ. But he/she is also wrong in that we should eschew our judgments on the practical when we do so. For each of us, though made in the image of God, are all incomplete images. It must be a matter of judgment to be able to identify where we must stand. Christ Himself, though wishing that we all be one, said that He came not to bring peace and unite, but to divide. It is divisiveness, seeking the discord of the old order that a new, better one rise in its place. Its a stance that does not suffer lukewarm and half-hearted indecision when the line in the sand is drawn.
Love and Justice need not be mutually exclusive. Love without truth is an empty balloon. It won't fly.
JonathanR, thank you for the thoughtful response.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. I differ on your first paragraph. We do not need divisiveness to bring about a new order. We need to stay with the old order: The Apostolic truths passed down to us by our fathers expressed with the love and compassion of Christ. Truth and Love must go hand in hand, as St. Paul tells us and Pope Benedict reminds us.
No where do I say we should eschew our personal judgment. No where do I say we should adopt relativism or modernism. My point is that Truth should be accompanied by Love. Ridicule and derision are not the actions of Love.
Those who imagine me saying that one should embrace error out of (a false sense of) Love read something into my words that simply is not there.
If the idea of Truth spoken through Love merits dismissal, then say so directly. Don't mischaracterize it and then dismiss the strawman. That is the modus operandi that is often decried as belonging to the mainstream media.
peace
+J.M.J+
Respectfully, catholic, since you're new to this blog I think it's possible you might not understand what's going on here.
No one here is ridiculing others in order to be mean and cruel. We're just weary with the way our Faith is caricatured and derided by the media, special interest groups and popular culture. So we sometimes react to it with satire and parody.
It doesn't mean we hate the people who say these things; we're mocking their false views, not necessarily despising them for holding them. St. Thomas Aquinas defined love as "willing the highest good for someone". Just because we poke fun at misconceptions about the Church doesn't mean we don't will the highest good (i.e. Heaven) for those who hold such erroneous opinions. We still want them to ultimately learn the truth somehow and so attain eternal life.
A while back, someone posted a humorous statement here in which he said something like, "The thing I like most about being Catholic is worshipping statues". It was a joke; he was parodying the false charge that anti-Catholic Protestants typically make about us.
We all then chimed in, saying we enjoyed worshipping the Pope, believing Mary was the "fourth person of the Trinity", etc. We were just blowing off some steam. You know, sometimes when someone falsely accuses you of something over and over again, and you deny it over and over and over again, but they continue to accuse you of it, you just come to the point where you want to scream: "ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, I DO WORSHIP PINECONES! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR?!?!?!?!?!"
We were just having a bit of fun. It doesn't mean we hate Protestants; even some of the Protestants who regularly visit here understood that and enjoyed our little venting session.
Sure, sometimes the satire can get a little sharp. I’m not going to claim that it never rises to an uncharitable level, because it may even cross that line on occasion. But we don’t mean to be rotten, we don’t really want to sin. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but we all sin sometimes; who among us is without sin? But not all satire is sinful; I think that’s the point the other posters here and I are trying to make.
(continued)
Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think Mark's little joke about women vs "women" was uncharitable. He's right in that feminists claim to speak for and stick up for the interests of all women, but in practice they are often very selective in who they defend.
Where were they when Paula Jones was derided as "trailer trash" for taking on the feminists' poster-boy POTUS? Why did Gloria Steinem defend Clinton's groping of Kathleen Wiley? When Katherine Harris was mocked for how much eye makeup she wore, why didn't the feminists make a peep about this trashing of a woman in a position of political power? More recently, when Terri Schaivo’s husband wanted her dead, why did we hear nothing from the NOW?
(But they did want to defend Andrea Yates, the woman who killed her five children. I guess that shows where their priorities are.)
This is the kind of thing Mark was poking fun at; feminists who consider women who disagree with them “unwomen” (yes, feminists have used that term!). He's not saying he hates feminists and wants them all to burn in Hell. There's a difference.
In Jesu et Maria,
No, Paul, you've got it wrong. It is you who are stuck in the current world view. Too many look at people and see sides when they should look at people and see Christ
Well since you say I am wrong I must be wrong. You win by fiat!
Rosemarie said:
Where were they when Paula Jones was derided as "trailer trash" for taking on the feminists' poster-boy POTUS? Why did Gloria Steinem defend Clinton's groping of Kathleen Wiley? When Katherine Harris was mocked for how much eye makeup she wore, why didn't the feminists make a peep about this trashing of a woman in a position of political power? More recently, when Terri Schaivo’s husband wanted her dead, why did we hear nothing from the NOW?
(But they did want to defend Andrea Yates, the woman who killed her five children. I guess that shows where their priorities are.)
MaggieOH replies: I was thinking the same thing about Theresa Schindler. Where were they? Why is it that they did not defend Terri against the abuse dished out by her husband? They take to the streets claiming to be reclaiming the streets, but they refused to defend this brain damaged woman. If they were honest they should have been shouting from the tops of their voices that a woman is not a chattel for her husband, such that he has the right to kill her in such a fashion.
That is why the radical feminists will never represent my views. That is why I believe that these women who are against the Pope (either John Paul II or Benedict XVI ) do not represent myself in the Catholic world.
I, for one, do not believe that we need to have women as priests. In fact according to the Scriptures there is absolutely no way that they can be legitimately ordained into the priesthood. However, that does not mean that women do not have powerful roles within the Church. That idea is just so wrong headed that it is not funny. Women are working at all levels in the Church, except for ministerial priesthood. In the past there have been women saints who have been advisors to the Popes, and that is an extremely important function that was being carried out by a woman (St. Catherine of Siena).
In the early portions of the Acts of the Apostles the groundwork was laid for the evolution of the hierarchy of the Church. The men had the ministerial roles, but the women also had important roles within the early Christian community. For example, Priscilla is mentioned by name because of her evangelization work. Not all evangelization is done through oral preaching. There are other forms of preaching that are utilized by women, and this is especially true of the early Christian women. The early Christian women led by their example to others. That is the kind of hands on preaching that is the role of women in the Church. It is a continuing role for women in the Church.
to Rosemarie (cont)
Women today continue to have a unique role within the Church. Yes there are women who are also advisors at the highest levels of the Church. For hundreds of years it has been the women who have set out to educate the masses, when public education was unthinkable.
To give an example of the role of these women in our Church, I cite the story of Nano Nagle, the Irish founder of the Presentation sisters. The sisters provided work for a population that was starving to death because of the potato famine, by teaching them to crochet and make Irish crochet lace. They had a regular lace industry that was based upon this form of lace. This could not have happened without the dedication of the nuns who taught the women who were in abject poverty to crochet.
I have already cited Catherine of Siena, and there are plenty more in the way of women saints who have played an important role in the Church. Rather than advising the Popes in one way, the women who are involved at top level are involved in life issues and represent the Vatican at conferences that are dominated by the leftist pro-choice, pro-death through euthanasia camp
+J.M.J+
All good points, Maggie. One could add that some abbesses during the Middle Ages had temporal authority roughly equivalent to that of a bishop - though they lacked Holy Orders, of course, and so could not dispense the Sacraments as bishops could. Yet their authority was real; they even carried a croiser as a symbol of their office and wore a ring!
Here's an interesting quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Abbesses:
In medieval times the Abbesses of the larger and more important houses were not uncommonly women of great power and distinction, whose authority and influence rivalled, at times, that of the most venerate bishops and abbots. In Saxon England, "they had often the retinue and state of princesses, especially when they came of royal blood. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;. . . they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies, and affixed their signatures to the charters therein granted." (Montalembert, "The Monks of the West," Bk. XV.) They appeared also at Church councils in the midst of the bishops and abbots and priests, as did the Abbess Hilda at the Synod of Whitby in 664, and the Abbess Elfleda, who succeeded her, at that of the River Nith in 705. Five Abbesses were present at the Council of Becanfield in 694, where they signed the decrees before the presbyters.
(From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...hen/01007e.htm)
There were also double monasteries in medieval times, where monks and nuns lived in separate buildings that were connected by a common chapel where they worshipped together. Some of these dual monasteries had an abbess as a common superior, in which case the monks were under obedience to a woman!
(continued...)
The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following about double monasteries:
In many double monasteries the supreme rule was in the hands of the abbess, and monks as well as nuns were subject to her authority. This was especially the case in England, e.g. in St. Hilda's at Whitby and St. Etheldreda's at Ely, though elsewhere, but more rarely, it was the abbot who ruled both men and women, and sometimes, more rarely still, each community had its own superior independent of the other. The justification for the anomalous position of a woman acting as the superior of a community of men is usually held to originate from Christ's words from the Cross, "Woman, behold thy son; Son, behold thy mother"; and it is still further urged that maternity is a form of authority dereved from nature, whilst that which is paternal is merely legal. But, whatever may be its origin, the supreme rule of an abbess over both men and women was deliberately revived, and sanctioned by the Church, in two of the three medieval orders that consisted of double monasteries. At Fontevrault (founded 1099) and with the Bridgettines (1346), the abbess was the superior of monks as well as nuns, though with the Gilbertines (1146) it was the prior who ruled over both.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10452a.htm)
So yes, some women have exercised certain forms of ecclesiastical power in the past, despite not having Holy Orders. Which puts the lie to radical heretic's ignorant statement above: "Must believe that women are not qualified to be leaders in the organization and they must serve the men." Yeah, tell that to the abbesses who headed double monasteries. Tell that to great Christian queens like St. Margaret of Scotland. Sheesh.
A good book: Woman as Force in History by Mary Beard.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Or, for that matter, tell that to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the "patriarchal" Church teaches is the Queen of Heaven and the highest of all mere creatures, even greater than her earthly husband, St. Joseph. Only God is above her.
BTW, sorry the link in the post above is broken; hope these work:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Abbesses
Catholic Encyclopedia: Double Monasteries
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
I always enjoy your very well thought out posts and sense of humor. You are a born writer and apologist.
Diana
Rosemarie, thank you for the very thoughtful and charitable reply.
peace
catholic - i just want to give you the dictionary definition of satire form Webster's
Satire:n- a 1. literary work in which vices , follies, etc are held up to ridicule and contempt 2. the use of ridicule, sarcasm etc to attack vices follies etc
don't that just say it all
Peace and have a good sleep!
whups i mean "from" Websters as in dictionary
me again
PS - I think NEW YORK is a Missionary of Charity who forgot to put on her habit in the morning and is worried the other Missionaries might turn around at any given moment and find her out.
hee hee
Hannah
+J.M.J+
Jane and Diana: Thank you.
catholic: You're welcome
And if I may say something in defense of "NEW YORK" in the picture, that's not necessarily a look of disappointment. Maybe she's thinking, "Ratzinger who? What are all these people getting excited about? Am I the only one here who never heard of him?"
Then again, I was born in NY so maybe I'm partial
In Jesu et Maria,
"We need to stay with the old order: The Apostolic truths passed down to us by our fathers expressed with the love and compassion of Christ."
Actually, that is the new order. The old order is the one we left behind after Christ redeemed all. Unfortunately, that old order still persists.
And for that, we must divide. And conquer.
Actually, I'm not sure the woman in the pink turtleneck and leather jacket, almost hidden but just visible over the right shoulder of the girl with the green blouse, black sweater and blue camera(?), is smiling either. And I'm pretty sure we all know what she's thinking!
I'm inclined to defend the New York gil just because that is a Mets jersey she's wearing. Come to think of it, I saw a different Mets jersey when I was in Rome two and a half years ago.
John C, I think the woman in the pink turtleneck with the black leather jacket is Hillary Clinton. I could be wrong, but, given that that is one of her many outfits, and Lord knows she just loves us Catholics, I think she just wanted to share in the moment.
Commenting by HaloScan
