St. Louis Female Priest Responds to Vatican Equating Women Reverends with Pedophiles

• That is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The Vatican should know all about priests being pedophiles. MALE priests are accused of touching little kids everyday but the Vatican won't address that. They wanna stick their goddamn noses where they don't belong. This is exactly why I have lost all faith in the church. They don't give a crap who's a priest. Jeffrey Dahmer could have decided that he wanted to be a goddamn priest and they would have let him. What the hell is wrong with the church today anyways?

• Come on, women. If you are pretty and young and standing in a pulpit, men would be musing about how you would be in bed. Also you would be vulnerable to advances by flirtatious men. The Lord Jesus, who is God, chose only men for his apostles.

• Look, if you want to bring up all these technicalities about who can be a priest, you're going to force me to point out that TECHNICALLY, all priests are supposed to be celibate. And yet, so many of them seem to hail Mary, full of grace/a little boy upon their face. WHERE'S YOUR MESSIAH NOW?

• GBullough, Even if what you say about the alleged ordination of a woman bishop is true, it does not make her a valid bishop or these women valid Priestesses. The form of priesthood requires a man, just like the form of marriage requires a man and a woman. If 2 women and 1 man attempt marriage in the Church, and it is officiated by a priest, is it a marriage? No. Because the form of marriage requires a man and women. The same is true with priesthood. An attempt to ordain a woman is not valid, because the form is not proper. Nor would the attempt to ordain someone lacked capacity be valid, like a child or mentally handicapped person. They are invalid, ab initio, because the form is not valid. All of this is quite clear under Canon law. What you are referring to as valid but illicit occurs when you have a valid form, but an illicit exercise. An example of this would be the bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebrve of the SSPX.

• Sorry, guys, but the bishops (two bishops are required to ordain a bishop) who ordained the woman bishop who ordained Rev. Elsie were and are Roman Catholic bishops in good standing. Their names are kept secret for obvious reasons. But they're on the papers that will be made public after their deaths. Thus the ordination of the bishop, and Rev. Elsie are what is known as "valid but illicit." That is, it's a "no-no" but none the less binding under Canon Law. Read it and weep. These women are Catholic bishop, and Catholic priest, respectively, and valid in Apostolic Succession. Now, they may be "excommunicated" but even excommunication cannot "un priest" or "un bishop" a bishop. The Sacraments they administer remain "valid" albeit "illicit." Even "laicization" according to Canon Law, can make a priest not a priest. It can't be un-done.

• I think this may really mean that the ordination of women is seen as such a looming possibility that it is now viewed by the CEOs of that exclusive all male club as a serious threat.

• My sentence "Finally, the document that codified the norms does try to put illicit ordination of women "on par" with sex abuse of children" Should have read "Finally, the document that codified the norms does *not* try to put illicit ordination of women "on par" with sex abuse of children. Sorry for the poor edit. Sometimes these windows on the comments section make it hard to note every mistake.

• Chad, as a reporter you need to get your facts straight: "Curious as to what one of St. Louis' three female Catholic priests..." There are no female Catholic priests. These women may have been ordained in a non-Catholic faith that follows Catholic tradition, but they are not Catholic. The use of the capital C is important here. Even the AP stylebook recognizes that "Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic Church, which these women excommunicated themselves from once they attempted the illicit ordination. "Rev. Rose Marie Hudson and Rev. Marybeth McBryan -- conduct a Catholic mass Sundays at 5 p.m. in the Hope Chape.." No, it is not a Catholic mass. Mass can only be celebrated by a priest. They may celebrate a ceremony that takes the form of the Mass, but it is nothing more than a protestant service. Their public protest against the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church makes them, by definition, protestants, not Catholics. Plus, any Catholic would know that, in the picture with this article, these women are wearing sash-style stoles. These are worn only by Catholic deacons, not Catholic priests. The women aren't even accurate impostors. Finally, the document that codified the norms does try to put illicit ordination of women "on par" with sex abuse of children. The document simply puts all of the most serious offense in on place, but in different sections: one referring to moral matters (the sex abuse) and the other referring to the sacraments (the illicit ordination). This type of documentation is common in both canon and civil law. The document also included norms for desecration of the Eucharist and offenses against the Sacrament of Penance. Of course, neither the mainstream nor the alternative press took time to explain this. Perhaps you were too busy trying to find yet another way to take a swipe at the Church without doing any real reporting. Had you contacted an actual canon lawyer with the Catholic Church, and not a couple of women with an axe to grind, you could have written the truth. Instead, you have misled your readers with falsehoods, misrepresentations and mere opinion.

• So sexual abuse of a child or mentally challenged adult is equivalent to ordination of women. Does that mean that they will ignor the ordained woment OR they will automaticall excommunicate abusers?

• When Galileo was imprisoned for telling the truth about the universe, the earth did not stop spinning because the Pope said it didn't. The Catholic priesthood is not dependant on any pope's view of it. The current pope, his cardinals, etc. have no idea at all about the priesthood. Priests do not rape children, nor do they enable the rapes of children. These men living all together in palaces are not priests. And they have no clue about the teachings of Jesus. Women have always been priests. AW

• Even St. Peter said there was "A Priesthood of ALL Believers!" Why not women in the ministry? Protestant denominations have been wise enough to accept the spirituality of women and the "Priesthood of ALL Believers," for at least a century. As far as "Apostolic Succession" is addressed, I would like to remind everyone that no human being ever "Ordained," the Apostle Paul. After Paul's sight was restored, he went out to the desert of Arabia for 3 years, where he was taught by the Holy Spirit. Upon returning to civilization, Paul immediately went to Jerusalem and CORRECTED Peter about his preaching to the Gentiles that they had to be circumsized if they accepted Christ. Whether or not the Heirarchy of the Catholic Church accepts female priests shouldn't be the question. The question should be, "Are women priests accepted by the Holy Spirit?" "By their fruits, ye shall know them!" Look at the fruits and coverups of the Hierarchy all over the world, as well as the Vatican and the Curia. Their coverups for Pedophile priests have caused irreparable damage to the Survivors, their families and the innocent diocese, which have had to pay for the misdeeds of their bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Are these "the Fruits of the Holy Spirit?" I think not! Give the women a chance. See what their fruits are before you pass judgment.

• I have to agree with Mike. I was raised Catholic, have relatives that are priests and nuns, but I have a lot of trouble with the Catholic Church, not the least of which is its stand on the ordination of women. For this article to refer to these women as "female Catholic priests" is inaccurate at best, and a willing dissemblence at least. Since, as the article notes, the Catholic Church does not sanction the ordination of women, they cannot be considered priests within the Catholic Church, and the mass they are performing is not a Roman Catholic Mass. It may have all the form and trappings of the RC Mass, but it isn't.

• Rev. McGrath was not ordained by a female Catholic bishop, as they do not exist. It certainly was not according to Canon Law. You may not agree with how the RC Church runs things (I know I don't on a lot of issues), but it is allowed to make its own rules. You are free to leave at any time, start your own faith and operate it as you see fit. Just because you can unclog a drain doesn't mean you can advertise yourself as a plumber in the yellow pages. I'm not sure how I feel about women being ordained. I know I certainly don't equate women's ordination with child abuse. But to me, these women definitely are not Catholic priests.

TotalComments: 13