For Fix, Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea

[EtienneGilson]

Thank you Fix for your quote, I would like to repost it here in a new thread to prevent the old thread from going off-track.

Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea wrote to Archbishop O’Malley:

Almost surely, if Jesus returned today to St. Peter’s Square (or Holy Cross Cathedral), he would do so as a tattooed, multiply pierced individual wearing jeans and an old camouflage jacket. He (or she) would dine with gays and lesbians, bless the children born in test tubes, and gather unto him the sea of sexual abuse victims. He would, as he did, spend his time lifting the marginalized and powerless of today’s world while taking down the arrogant who teach with forked tongues. He (or she) would remind the modern day Pharisees - you and too, too many of your episcopal brethren - that people are more important than rules or accoutrements of power. As before, almost surely, the Swiss Guards would call the Romans to remove the disruptive truth teller from the temple. Sound familiar?

cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3140

Now Fix, what do you have against this quote? Why does it invalidate her credentials and her research into the causes of the sex abuse crisis?

When Jesus came the first time, he did come as an outcast, downtrodden, poor man. Though he didn’t have tattooes or piercings, he also didn’t dress as the scribes and pharisees (priests and Bishops), or as the Greeks and Romans (businessmen and politicians). He dressed as a poor, ordinary man. Is see no problem here.

I have no doubt he would dine with homosexuals, he dined with much worse, tax collectors (I say this as a joke, both my parents worked for the CRA, Canada’s IRS). The quote says nothing about encouraging a homosexual lifestyle (go and sin no more) but it marks a level of tolerance and acceptance not always found in Catholic Churches. Once again I see no problem here.

Certainly he would bless children, all children including those born of test-tubes, much like Pope John XXIII did. I am sure he would bless children born of rape too, but I doubt that would be construed as a defense of rape. Again I see no problem here.

As for forked tougues and modern pharisees, strong language but no stronger than, “Get thee behind me Satan”. I see no problem here either.

As as for people being more important that rules, the western Church has something to learn from the east here, the concept of economy. I see no problem here again.

I only need to look at what various people said about her to see where the charitableness, the love and the truth lie:

The USCCB should be abolished immediately by a DEMAND of all Catholics who want to preserve our authentic Faith

this incompetent body to promulgate downright stupid thinking and announcements, and actions such as selecting this psychologist

This tolerance brigade of Therapists and psycho-ologists are advising our bishops?

A boring recycling of one of the more ridiculous prophesies of WWJD, by a mediocre intelligence. It would not merit notice but for the prevalence of mediocre minds in the priesthood,

A wonderful examlpe of justifying evil by ridiculing truth, values, chastity

This must be a joke. The so called expert “witch”

The smoke of Satan has entered the offices of the USCCB…

The number of the beast is her hourly fee rate.

WOW!!! This woman makes We Aren’t Church and Voice of the Unfaithful sound like the SSPX!

cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3140

Doesn’t Dante reserve a level of hell for those people who utter such terrible things and defame the names of good people?

 

[Brad]

Fix can answer quite adequately but I’ll throw in my 2 cents of what I think is wrong with the quote:

1. Justifies violations of the 5th commandment (body abuse)
2. Justifies violations of the 6th and 9th commandments (sexual perversion)
3. Justifies flauting of Church teaching on human sexuality (test tube babies)
4. Justifies condemnation and mockery of the Church teaching authority, instituted by Christ Himself
5. Implies that Jesush Himself would violate commandments

This is little short of blasphemy and none short of heresy.

Let’s face reality here. The people in modern countries that get tatoos and piercings don’t do it because they have to and don’t do it because they are poor. The people in modern countries that practice homosexual acts don’t do it because they have to and don’t do it because they are poor. The priests dress as they do because it is required of them as a servant of God Himself.

The claim that the Church is intolerant against homosexuals has no merit and cannot be backed by any official Church document. The intolerance claim is a further effort to push the homosexual agenda, including early sexualization and perversion of children, down the throats of good Christian families.

Similarly the comment regarding blessing the test tube babies is a knock on the Church teaching regarding human sexuality and nothing less. For nowhere has the Church done anything but uphold all human life in all forms. There is no other reason to make the comment than to contest the Church teaching as to how pro-creation should take place morally.

Jesus Christ said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” and He established His Church here on earth to protect that truth. Jesus did not say “your neighbor” or “your social activity” or “your idealistic cause” or your “your science” or your “your intellectualism” or “your peace” or “your happiness” or “your way” or “your friends” or “your utopia” or “your enlightenment” or “your interpretation” is the Way.

Christ first. Then peace, love, understanding, communion, forgiveness, mercy.

Proper order.

 

[Vatican_II]

EtienneGilson:

Now Fix, what do you have against this quote? Why does it invalidate her credentials and her research into the causes of the sex abuse crisis?

When Jesus came the first time, he did come as an outcast, downtrodden, poor man. Though he didn’t have tattooes or piercings, he also didn’t dress as the scribes and pharisees (priests and Bishops), or as the Greeks and Romans (businessmen and politicians). He dressed as a poor, ordinary man. Is see no problem here.?

Your use of hyperbole is noted. Christ came to earth as the apparent son of a carpenter. In the society of His day he would be a tradesman and thereby middle class, lower middle class if you would prefer, but not a begger. He dressed as a majority of the people did. Scripture shows no evidence at the time of him being either an outcast or downtrodden. The Roman occupation was not a concern to him, nor did he preach against it.

EtienneGilson:

I have no doubt he would dine with homosexuals, he dined with much worse, tax collectors (I say this as a joke, both my parents worked for the CRA, Canada’s IRS). The quote says nothing about encouraging a homosexual lifestyle (go and sin no more) but it marks a level of tolerance and acceptance not always found in Catholic Churches. Once again I see no problem here.

I agree with you that Jesus would have dined with homosexuals, whether “Thou shall not commit adultery” is greater than “Thou shall not steal” is unimportant, they are both mortal sins. Scripture says that Christ answered the young man who asked what must he do to enter heaven by saying obey the commandments. And as in the adultress he would not object to the law or the punishment, only the judgement by sinful men.

EtienneGilson:

Certainly he would bless children, all children including those born of test-tubes, much like Pope John XXIII did. I am sure he would bless children born of rape too, but I doubt that would be construed as a defense of rape. Again I see no problem here.

As for forked tougues and modern pharisees, strong language but no stronger than, “Get thee behind me Satan”. I see no problem here either.

The children born by whatever occurence are innocent of any sin of their biological parents (excepting original sin). Jesus would bless them as well as weep bitterly for those innocent unborn who were murdered by their parents. Your attempt to divert the attention of the reader by implying that the Catholic Church would not accept the children as a way to forestall rightful condemnation of the actual sinners is frail.

Forked tongues and modern pharisees would be acceptable if true. However history has shown the Catholic Church to preach and to judge only by the word of God. For those who believe that ACTIVE homosexuality is acceptable to God because of his infinite mercy they themselves are guilty of the sin of presumption against the virtue of hope. It may do to remind such people that while Christ’s willing acceptance of death on the cross is proof of infinite divine mercy, then God’s requirement that nothing less than such a sacrifice was needed to redeem man is proof of infinite divine justice. The Catholic Church alone has kept God’s word on contraception, abortion, divorce and homosexuality

EtienneGilson:

As as for people being more important that rules, the western Church has something to learn from the east here, the concept of economy. I see no problem here again.

I only need to look at what various people said about her to see where the charitableness, the love and the truth lie:

You end your argument at the point which supports most critics of the Church do. You wish to place man, the creature, above God, the creator. Because man finds it difficult to keep God’s commandments (rules) then obviously they must be wrong or not interpreted right. Charity is shown to the repentant sinner, we can and we must love all people, but we must bear witness to the truth. We cannot for charity sake say that a sin is a virtue. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is a problem. Active homosexuals must understand that what they do is an “abomination” and must be surpressed. The Catholic Church teaches that we must show tolerance to such sinners, we may not discriminate or harass them.



cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3140

Doesn’t Dante reserve a level of hell for those people who utter such terrible things and defame the names of good people?

 

[Orionthehunter]

EtienneGilson:

Thank you Fix for your quote, I would like to repost it here in a new thread to prevent the old thread from going off-track.

Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea wrote to Archbishop O’Malley: cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3140

Now Fix, what do you have against this quote? Why does it invalidate her credentials and her research into the causes of the sex abuse crisis?

When Jesus came the first time, he did come as an outcast, downtrodden, poor man. Though he didn’t have tattooes or piercings, he also didn’t dress as the scribes and pharisees (priests and Bishops), or as the Greeks and Romans (businessmen and politicians). He dressed as a poor, ordinary man. Is see no problem here.

I have no doubt he would dine with homosexuals, he dined with much worse, tax collectors (I say this as a joke, both my parents worked for the CRA, Canada’s IRS). The quote says nothing about encouraging a homosexual lifestyle (go and sin no more) but it marks a level of tolerance and acceptance not always found in Catholic Churches. Once again I see no problem here.

Certainly he would bless children, all children including those born of test-tubes, much like Pope John XXIII did. I am sure he would bless children born of rape too, but I doubt that would be construed as a defense of rape. Again I see no problem here.

As for forked tougues and modern pharisees, strong language but no stronger than, “Get thee behind me Satan”. I see no problem here either.

As as for people being more important that rules, the western Church has something to learn from the east here, the concept of economy. I see no problem here again.

I only need to look at what various people said about her to see where the charitableness, the love and the truth lie:

cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3140

Doesn’t Dante reserve a level of hell for those people who utter such terrible things and defame the names of good people?

I think that there is merit to some degree with the points made by the OP and Ms. MGF O’dea but also some points of equal demerit.

I think the implication that Christ would have kindly and gently loved even the most unlovable among us is true. The 2nd Commandment isn’t “Love those you like or who think like you do as you’d love yourself.” Compassion, truth and charity are not words that are mutually exclusive. Too often I do sense that the advocates of compassion think it requires the truth be watered down. Similary, the advocates of Truth seem to think that it can be delivered without compassion or charity. In both cases, IMHO it appears they are both equally disconnected to the Good News. Christ’s calling is to always preach the Truth but to do so with a tender heart.

Christ would have come again into a family of no notable outward distinction but one of great internal holiness. But I don’t think He’d have come as one wearing tatoos and earings. By definition, tatoos and earings are a statement of personal self-expression. Not once in Scripture did Christ express Himself in such a shallow way but always simple in presentation so one could focus on what was being said.

Christ didn’t come as an outcast. He came as a simple average person. He was outcast not because of His appearance or manner but because of what He preached. This is certainly different from being an outcast because of His dress or lifestyle.

Christ would have certainly dined among sinners as He did 2,000 years ago. However, he didn’t dine with tax collectors to endorse their livlihood or lifestyle but to express that even the “most unholy” among us can be repent and reform his life. The OP and Ms. O’dea seem to suggest that dining w/ gays would be some type of endorsement of their lifestyle or that the Church’s current stand is contrary to Christ’s message.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Orionthehunter:

I think that there is merit to some degree with the points made by the OP and Ms. MGF O’dea but also some points of equal demerit.

I think the implication that Christ would have kindly and gently loved even the most unlovable among us is true. The 2nd Commandment isn’t “Love those you like or who think like you do as you’d love yourself.” Compassion, truth and charity are not words that are mutually exclusive. Too often I do sense that the advocates of compassion think it requires the truth be watered down. Similary, the advocates of Truth seem to think that it can be delivered without compassion or charity. In both cases, IMHO it appears they are both equally disconnected to the Good News. Christ’s calling is to always preach the Truth but to do so with a tender heart.

Christ would have come again into a family of no notable outward distinction but one of great internal holiness. But I don’t think He’d have come as one wearing tatoos and earings. By definition, tatoos and earings are a statement of personal self-expression. Not once in Scripture did Christ express Himself in such a shallow way but always simple in presentation so one could focus on what was being said.

Christ didn’t come as an outcast. He came as a simple average person. He was outcast not because of His appearance or manner but because of what He preached. This is certainly different from being an outcast because of His dress or lifestyle.

Christ would have certainly dined among sinners as He did 2,000 years ago. However, he didn’t dine with tax collectors to endorse their livlihood or lifestyle but to express that even the “most unholy” among us can be repent and reform his life. The OP and Ms. O’dea seem to suggest that dining w/ gays would be some type of endorsement of their lifestyle or that the Church’s current stand is contrary to Christ’s message.

Excellent response! And in almost all instances, Christ’s presence and interaction with these people CHANGED them and in ever instance CHALLENGED them. And of course He would have blessed and embraced the test tube baby! That’s not a ringing endorsement of the use of science to generate life, however.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

The OP and Ms. O’dea seem to suggest that dining w/ gays would be some type of endorsement of their lifestyle or that the Church’s current stand is contrary to Christ’s message.

Correct. That is why their points have much less merit because they are advancing a covert agenda.

 

[fix]

He (or she)

Apparently, the good doctor thinks Jesus may be a female?

 

[fix]

Brad:

Correct. That is why their points have much less merit because they are advancing a covert agenda.

Yes, except I do not think it is totally covert.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Apparently, the good doctor thinks Jesus may be a female?

Pop psychology is that everyone is androgynous. This doesn’t matter as long as we can obtain pleasure and satisfaction.

 

[EtienneGilson]

I don’t know how many times it was repeated but it is a sad commentary on people who replied that no where in the quote does Dr. O’Dea suggest that the Catholic Church alter it’s position regarding the sinful nature of homosexual acts. Why the posters at this forum found it necessary to state and restate ad nauseum this is beyond me. Here is just one quote which is indicative of the failure to properly read (or read at all) or comprehend Dr. O’Dea’s and my comments

However, he didn’t dine with tax collectors to endorse their livlihood or lifestyle but to express that even the “most unholy” among us can be repent and reform his life. The OP and Ms. O’dea seem to suggest that dining w/ gays would be some type of endorsement of their lifestyle or that the Church’s current stand is contrary to Christ’s message.

How this couple be written when my original posted noted:

I have no doubt he would dine with homosexuals, he dined with much worse, tax collectors (I say this as a joke, both my parents worked for the CRA, Canada’s IRS). The quote says nothing about encouraging a homosexual lifestyle (go and sin no more) but it marks a level of tolerance and acceptance not always found in Catholic Churches. Once again I see no problem here.

Furthermore, those who hold that Jesus came as a middle-classed family are mistaken about the status of carpenters (tekton) in the Roman provences. This is supported by this article blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/influences.htm and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Joseph newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

This is further evidenced by Mary’s purification offering. Mosaic law perscribes a young lamb and a turtle dove be sacrificed, but for the poor, two turtledoves could be substituted. Mary substituted just that, two turtledoves.

This is in complete agreement with Dr O’Dea’s letter and my statement given that tattooes and piercings are generally viewed as lower-class in our society. Jesus did come as a down-trodden poor man as further displayed in the infancy narrative so beautifully illustrated by G.K. Chesterton in “The Everlasting Man”.

 

[Brad]

EtienneGilson:

I don’t know how many times it was repeated but it is a sad commentary on people who replied that no where in the quote does Dr. O’Dea suggest that the Catholic Church alter it’s position regarding the sinful nature of homosexual acts. Why the posters at this forum found it necessary to state and restate ad nauseum this is beyond me. Here is just one quote which is indicative of the failure to properly read (or read at all) or comprehend Dr. O’Dea’s and my comments

It is actually not a sad commentary. It is a very positive commentary that these posters are wise to covert attempts to normalize and de-sensitize behavior that is sinful and harmful.

The last statement is a dead giveway - she is saying that the Church leadership in Rome (which includes the Pope) is incapable of recognizing Jesus Christ. What does that suggest about what she thinks regarding their teaching? It is not difficult to connect the dots. The difficult part is overcoming the “covert” obfuscation that is spread by false defenses of carefully crafted statements made by closet heretics that infiltrate the Church in an effort to finalize their grand scheme of extricating the Church from the “dark ages”.

This game has been played “ad nauseum” for many years and it still continues today. The difference is that less are buying the agenda today. Sorry.

 

[Orionthehunter]

EtienneGilson:

I don’t know how many times it was repeated but it is a sad commentary on people who replied that no where in the quote does Dr. O’Dea suggest that the Catholic Church alter it’s position regarding the sinful nature of homosexual acts. Why the posters at this forum found it necessary to state and restate ad nauseum this is beyond me. Here is just one quote which is indicative of the failure to properly read (or read at all) or comprehend Dr. O’Dea’s and my comments

How this couple be written when my original posted noted:

Furthermore, those who hold that Jesus came as a middle-classed family are mistaken about the status of carpenters (tekton) in the Roman provences. This is supported by this article blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/influences.htm and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Joseph newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

This is further evidenced by Mary’s purification offering. Mosaic law perscribes a young lamb and a turtle dove be sacrificed, but for the poor, two turtledoves could be substituted. Mary substituted just that, two turtledoves.

This is in complete agreement with Dr O’Dea’s letter and my statement given that tattooes and piercings are generally viewed as lower-class in our society. Jesus did come as a down-trodden poor man as further displayed in the infancy narrative so beautifully illustrated by G.K. Chesterton in “The Everlasting Man”.

I am one who mis-interpreted the statement to imply condoning because of this portion of the post:

it marks a level of tolerance and acceptance not always found in Catholic Churches

I can see that the OP may have meant to imply acceptance of the person’s dignity as made in the image of God and not their lifestyle choice. I apologize for the misinterpretation but greater clarity in the construction of the sentence would have been helpful.

Regarding the tatoos and earings, I stand by my view that Christ would not have been interested in making a shallow statement of personal self-expression such as this. Even if He were to have come into the U.S. today rather than in Israel 2,000 years ago, this is not a common customary mode of “decoration” in the U.S. but an expression of a minority not commonly associated with a devout pious household.

 

[contemplative]

Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, PhD, is a faculty member and supervisor at the Derner Institute for Advanced Psychological Studies at Adelphi University, Garden City, New York; the Minnesota Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalytic Studies; and the National Training Program in Contemporary Psychoanalysis in New York City. She also is on the continuing education faculty of the National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, Inc., in New York City. Coauthor with Jody Messler Davies of Treating the Adult Survivor of Childhood Sexual Abuse, Dr. Frawley-O’Dea is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst in clinical and supervisory practice in New City, New York.

While Mary Gail’s credentials seem very impressive I do find this passage written by her a bit alarming.

I am currently reading Live Well, Die Holy by Saint Robert Bellarmine. St. Bellarmine says that in addition to Faith, Hope and Charity we have 3 more theological virtues to aid us in becoming saints…sobriety, justice and piety.

Here is an epitome of the whole of the divine law, reduced into one short sentence: “Decline from evil, and do good.” In evil there are two things: turning away from God, and turning toward cratures, according to the prophet Jeremiah: “My people have done two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have dug to themselves cisterns, boken cisterns, that can hold no water.” What therefore must he who wishes to decline from evil do? He must deny ungodliness and worldly desires." Ungodliness turns us away doing good, we shall then fulfill the law when we live soberly, justly, and piously – that is when we are sober toward ourselves, just toward our neighbor, and pious toward God.

But why are these two mentioned, since one would be suffiecient? The Holy Spirit was pleased to speak thus, in order to make us understand that if we wish to please God, we must be so in love with piety as to admit of no impiety. For there are many Christians who seem pious by praying God, by assisting at the Adorable Sacrifice, by hearing sermons, and so on; but, in the meanwhile, they either blaspheme God, or swear falsely, or break their vows. And what else is this, but to pretend to be pious toward God, and yet be impious at the same time? Wherefore, it behooveth those who esire to live well so that they may die well, to worship God so as to deny all ungodliness – yes, even the very shadow of it. For it will be of little profit to hear Mass daily, and to adore Christ in the Holy Mysteries, if, in the meantime, we impiosly basheme God, or swear falsely by His holy name.
But we must also carefully remark that the apostle does not say “denying ungodliness,” but “denying all ungodliness” that is, all kinds of impiety; not only the more heinous sort, but even the slightest.

What strikes many as being ‘off’ is the impiety of Mary Gail’s words. Equating Jesus to a tatoo, multiple pierced man who unquestionably dines with homosexuals is an impious worldy vision of our Lord. Perhaps Mary Gail’s words would have had a greater and positive impact if she had stuck to the true Gospel words and message. As it is Mary Gail’s words strike me as being impious and is certainly a red flag to make me and others question why the USCCB is listening to her regardless of her impressive credentials. We need holy men and women to lead the Church not overly credentialed doctors of psycology.
Mary Gail has dug a cistern that holds no water. These words of hers crack all that she has dug for.
Does anyone know if Mary Gail claims to be Catholic? Who invited her in?

 

[fix]

As the book title suggests, sir,—and as many others have opined - it has become clear that the responsibility for the sexual abuse of tens of thousands of minors, as well as the succeeding scandal, rests squarely with those least willing to shoulder it. To wit, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, from the Seat of Peter to chanceries throughout the world, have labored long and hard to structure a Church dedicated too much - much too much - to the preservation of their own power. It is the power born of homosocial monarchy and it is frightening. As your recent actions make clear yet again, great woe befalls sexual abuse victims/survivors, laypersons, and especially priests who, in order to follow Gospel teachings, poke at the hierarchy’s assumed power and authority…

You, sir, have evidenced yourself as a Pharisee cloaked and secreted in monk’s clothing. The Pharisees, you may recall, were primarily concerned with their authority and they twisted the greatness of the Torah to suit their own lusts for power. You too, sir, have embarked on a spree of serial spiritual soul murders, wiping from your path those men and women who, truly following the Nazarene, challenged their leaders’ twisting of the Gospel. Your misogynistic refusal to wash the feet of women insulted the dignity of we the children of Eve, Sophia, Mary, and the Magdalene…

bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/the_bishops_experts/

The full letter may be read here.

I think it speaks for itself.

 

[fix]

Brad:

The difficult part is overcoming the “covert” obfuscation that is spread by false defenses of carefully crafted statements made by closet heretics that infiltrate the Church in an effort to finalize their grand scheme of extricating the Church from the “dark ages”.

What a well crafted sentence. It sums up the entire agenda concisely and puts things in the proper perspective.

 

[contemplative]

bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/the_bishops_experts/

The full letter may be read here.

I think it speaks for itself.

Pheww! What a heated and charged letter full of accusations.

By Mary Gail…Is there such a log in your eye

Mary Gail has lost the fight if she herself does not open her heart and eyes and see the Light. Surely life is hell for her already…I can hear it in her words. Faith, Hope and Charity…Mary Gail appears to lack greatly in all these. We should pray for her and her kind.

 

[EtienneGilson]

So let me get this straight: a doctor of psychology invited to speak to the bishops by the USCCB on sexual abuse is not an expert and should be discarded because she criticized a bishop for something (which is not clear to me) unrelated.

Yet members of this board are above reproach when they criticize another Bishop, Bishop Clarke of Rochester, or even Cardinals such as Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Martini, or Cardinal Daneels.

Whether Dr. O’Dea (I think she deserves the title, she earnt it) is a conservative Catholic or a liberal Jew or an atheist Martian has nothing to do with the research she has done and the conclusions she has reached.

As to the tone in the letter, it surely is a bit shocking which only leads me to wonder what ‘set her off’ about Archbishop O’Malley. But the tone is reminiscient of that of St. Catherine of Siena op.org/domcentral/trad/stcather.htm, Erasmus, St. Jerome and St. Thomas More. In fact, the tone of this thread clearly displays the moral superiority of this forum

But some people believe that any rebuking of authority (as long as it is a conservative in authority) is impious and proud. Some will even go so far as to repeat the rediculous claim that there is a liberal conspiracy to overthrow the Church

I will pray for the pompous on this board who claim to know the state of a person’s soul because of a heated letter criticizing (rightly or wrongly I do not know) a bishop and who inturn discredit all her scholarship and scholarship in general.

 

[contemplative]

EtienneGilson:

This is further evidenced by Mary’s purification offering. Mosaic law perscribes a young lamb and a turtle dove be sacrificed, but for the poor, two turtledoves could be substituted. Mary substituted just that, two turtledoves.

This is in complete agreement with Dr O’Dea’s letter and my statement given that tattooes and piercings are generally viewed as lower-class in our society. Jesus did come as a down-trodden poor man as further displayed in the infancy narrative so beautifully illustrated by G.K. Chesterton in “The Everlasting Man”.

I understand St. Joseph’s & Mary’s financial status when Jesus was born. It isn’t likely that it fluctuated much throughout Jesus’ time at home with his parents.

I did a word/image search on *poor, impoverished, lower class, poor people *and found what I thought to be true. What I see in real life is that folks who are in what I believe was The Holy Family’s economic class ( poor to lower class) are not generally pictured with body piercings and tattoos. They aren’t pictured this way because they are too poor to buy even that much. I live an area which is greatly mixed with people from all sorts of economic situations. I often shop where poor people shop and what I have found is that poor people and lower class people can not afford these things Mary Gail speaks of. These people I see can not even afford a belt to hold up their loose pants let alone a piercing.

It seems that Mary Gail is confused a bit about the way life really is. Maybe Mary Gail has spent way too much time in med/psycology books and the halls and libraries of colleges and institutions reserved for the wealthy. Mary Gail is way off kilter on this one.

Maybe it is time to try and understand the true meaning of sobriety.

I am 100% sure that Jesus exhibited true sobriety in all ways…that would mean he did not and would not wear tattoos and body piercings as we know them here in the USA.

 

[contemplative]

EtienneGilson:

As to the tone in the letter, it surely is a bit shocking which only leads me to wonder what ‘set her off’ about Archbishop O’Malley. But the tone is reminiscient of that of St. Catherine of Siena Erasmus, St. Jerome and St. Thomas More.

There is more than a disturbing tone to Mary Gail’s letter. There is substance and that substance is heretical. And furthermore, I would never go so far as to compare Mary Gail to good and holy people like St. Catherine of Siena Erasmus, St. Jerome and St. Thomas More

Again, Mary Gail goes much further than a simple rebuking of one single bishop.

homosocial monarchy

Right now is the right time to take the whole darn Apostolic Priesthood down.

Your misogynistic refusal to wash the feet of women insulted the dignity of we the children of Eve, Sophia, Mary, and the Magdalene.

Right now is the right time to put in a plug for women priestesses.

you become “Gollums,” obsessed with the power dangled by red hats, croziers, pectoral crosses, and newly forged, golden versions of the ring.

The only “Gollum” I hear scratching and gasping for precious precious power is Mary Gail.

 

[contemplative]

EtienneGilson:

Yet members of this board are above reproach when they criticize another Bishop, Bishop Clarke of Rochester, or even Cardinals such as Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Martini, or Cardinal Daneels.

I can’t speak for others on this thread but I can for myself. I support the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. I do not approve when any shepherd in the Church would lead the flock astray I equally disapprove of people like Mary Gail when they waltz in not only criticizing but trying to rewrite the Church based on worldly knowledge acquired in liberal institutions designed for the wealthy and powerful in this world. Who needs her song and dance? Not me. Not anyone.