Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston has said that were he to start a church he would “love to have women priests”

[JimG]

Honestly, I think that since the interviewer was pressing him, his intention was more along the lines of “hypothetically, I’d be fine with accepting women Priests if that had been how God willed it” in the sense that his feelings about it are irrelevant one way or the other, rather than saying he actually disagrees.

In other words, we assent to the male only priesthood not because we “like” it, but because God willed it, and our feelings about it are irrelevant.

Yes, I think that was the intent of his reply. I just can’t help but wish, though, that he would have called into question the whole basis of the interviewer’s question, which was apparently whether “excluding women from the Church hierarchy was immoral.” I mean, why would it be immoral to follow the teachings of Christ? I wish he had turned the question back on her somewhat more forcefully. But I certainly don’t doubt his orthodoxy.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Honestly, I think that since the interviewer was pressing him, his intention was more along the lines of “hypothetically, I’d be fine with accepting women Priests if that had been how God willed it” in the sense that his feelings about it are irrelevant one way or the other, rather than saying he actually disagrees.

In other words, we assent to the male only priesthood not because we “like” it, but because God willed it, and our feelings about it are irrelevant.

I join other posters in expressing my agreement. I think that many secular media types erroneously see the Catholic Church as merely another institution run by humans, such as a political party, and think that “well if enough individuals in the Church believe X, even if X represents a change in Church teaching, then it’s wrong for the Church NOT to change the teaching”.

The secular media take on the “ban” on woman priests is a political, not a religious one; they present it as proof that the Church is run by men who are personally sexist and misogynistic and are rubbing their hands together happily at the prospect of keeping women oppressed, barefoot and pregnant.

I think the Cardinal was trying to point out that assumption is erroneous. Maybe he didn’t quite succeed but that’s how I interpreted it.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the fact that CBS chose him to interview rather than, say AB Chaput or Card George, throws a lot of that slack out the window. I happen to know he didn’t give traditionalists much slack there in Boston.

I would assume they want to interview him because he’s the American prelate who seems closest to the Pope’s “inner circle”.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think the fact that CBS chose him to interview rather than, say AB Chaput or Card George, throws a lot of that slack out the window. I happen to know he didn’t give traditionalists much slack there in Boston.

They probably chose Cardinal O’Malley because of his close connections with Pope Francis.

Jim

 

[Tomdstone]

The news is reporting that the Church of England has approved the ordination of women bishops. Would the Cardinal love to have women bishops and cardinals?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The news is reporting that the Church of England has approved the ordination of women bishops. Would the Cardinal love to have women bishops and cardinals?

I think Cardinal O’Malley answered that question in the interview.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The news is reporting that the Church of England has approved the ordination of women bishops. Would the Cardinal love to have women bishops and cardinals?

Watch for more Anglican priests to come over the Catholic Church.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I would assume they want to interview him because he’s the American prelate who seems closest to the Pope’s “inner circle”.

Either that or closest to the agenda of CBS among others.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Either that or closest to the agenda of CBS among others.

Then CBS would’ve guessed wrong.

Jim

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I question some of Pope Francis’s management actions. He set up a council of advisers. Advisers should be advising him; not advising the press. The first time one of them spoke to the press, he should have called him in, explained the task of an adviser to him, and sent him home with his head in his hands.

 

[Estevao]

60 minutes has a long history of smearing the Catholic Church. This is the kind of “reporting” you get in a country with a long history of anti-catholicism. Click here for an internet search showcasing this show’s history of smearing the Church:

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:catholicleague.org+60+minutes

I personally don’t think O’Malley did terribly, he did as best as a liberal cardinal could be hoped to do, aside from that comment about what he “would have done” which I didn’t care for. But there’s a reason they got someone like him to do this piece instead of Cardinal George or Cardinal Burke.

 

[Bklynguy]

As to the American media, one can always expect a heretic to ask a heretical question.

 

[DennyO]

Having watched the program, I believe Cardinal O’Malley handled the question deftly. He used himself, the object of the interview, as the segue to pique the viewers interest and then used the hammer, that being that its Christ’s church, not his church, so his own feelings are immaterial. I dare say that all of those reading this, if they were to start a church, wold do a lot of things differently. The Church of Denny would be way different! But, its our mission to find what Christ wants for us.

I also commend Mrs. O’Donnell. Her questions were relevant, and reflect what most Americans think when the subject of Catholicism arises. She is not a public relations specialist for the Catholic Church, but a news person.

 

[estesbob]

Anglicans have women priests, so their interpretation of Scripture is different.

Actually their interpretation of Scripture was the same as Catholics for almost 2,000 years. One must ask what caused them to throw out 2,000 years of teachings and traditions?

 

[estesbob]

If I were to start a Church I would love to have ice cream cones passed out at the sign of peace…

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually their interpretation of Scripture was the same as Catholics for almost 2,000 years. One must ask what caused them to throw out 2,000 years of teachings and traditions?

Why did the Roman Catholic Church throw out 2000 years of Scriptural teachings and traditions with regard to women wearing headcovering in Church? I guess that the Anglicans threw out 2000 years of tradition on women priests for the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church threw out 2000 years of traditon on the obligation for women to wear headcovering in Church.

 

[ProVobis]

If I were to start a Church I would love to have ice cream cones passed out at the sign of peace…

I’m sure if someone could find anything resembling ice cream in the early church, we would have gallons of it delivered at every Mass.

 

[estesbob]

Why did the Roman Catholic Church throw out 2000 years of Scriptural teachings and traditions with regard to women wearing headcovering in Church? I guess that the Anglicans threw out 2000 years of tradition on women priests for the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church threw out 2000 years of traditon on the obligation for women to wear headcovering in Church.

It didn’t .

 

[Tomdstone]

It didn’t .

I suppose you could deny the obvious fact that women are not wearing headcovering in Catholic Churches in the USA and Europe. But who would believe you?

 

[estesbob]

I suppose you could deny the obvious fact that women are not wearing headcovering in Catholic Churches in the USA and Europe. But who would believe you?

It was never a doctrine of the Church.