S
SamH
Guest
In 10 years (5?) Time will have gone the way of *Tiger Beat *and the church will still be here.
- Status
O
OriginalJS
Guest
I read a wide variety of magazines published in the US and Europe to see what is being said. It doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with them. I believe doing so broadens my view and contributes to understanding what is going on.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
Wow! I didn’t read the Time issue reporting on women priests as preaching. It looked fairly accurate to me, on the facts at least. There are women holding themselves out as priests, and there are people advocating for allowing women into the priesthood. I’m surprised the Time issue is getting attention here.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
By doing so without knowing what the Truth is, you are just feeding which is false and encouraging ignorance.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
So what! Time magazine means nothing to us.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
What? Reading a variety of publications to gain understanding encourages ignorance? Well, we should all just stick our heads in the sand from now on! That should help us feel more intelligent.
R
RHC
Guest
For me, it wasn’t the fact that Time reported on these women who are claiming to be priestesses. That is news reporting - something unusual is going on (rogue bishop allegedly ordaining women) and it’s their job to report it. However, as a professional journalist, I think the article is possibly advocating change, which is not the job of news journalism. Here’s why.
A lot of space is given to making these women “sympathetic characters.” We’re told that they are mothers who just feel “called” to serve as priestesses. We learn about their lives outside the church. The reader sympathizes with them and identifies with them. However, the opposition (the Church) is given little space at all, and, when it is, it’s a faceless, unsympathetic “organization” or hierarchy. The reader is made to see the priestesses as unjustly “kept down” by this faceless organization. The priestesses are painted as sort of social martyrs on the altar of women’s rights.
Furthermore, any journalist worth his/her pay will tell you that controversial subjects, like this one, have to be treated carefully if the journalist is to remain objective. You can’t make one side sympathetic characters and the other a faceless machine. In fact, you should treat each side the same, offering the pros and cons of each position. Some news organizations I’ve worked for have been so picky about this that I had to count the number of words written about each side to make sure they were equal (or at least very close to equal). Placement of quotes is also important. Ever heard of “getting the last word”? It’s the same in writing - the last quote is often what the reader remembers from the article. This is Journalism 101.
Now, a writer for Time is no doubt familiar with these principles. Therefore, I am wondering why he/she wrote such an article on such a controversial subject from one point of view only.
A lot of space is given to making these women “sympathetic characters.” We’re told that they are mothers who just feel “called” to serve as priestesses. We learn about their lives outside the church. The reader sympathizes with them and identifies with them. However, the opposition (the Church) is given little space at all, and, when it is, it’s a faceless, unsympathetic “organization” or hierarchy. The reader is made to see the priestesses as unjustly “kept down” by this faceless organization. The priestesses are painted as sort of social martyrs on the altar of women’s rights.
Furthermore, any journalist worth his/her pay will tell you that controversial subjects, like this one, have to be treated carefully if the journalist is to remain objective. You can’t make one side sympathetic characters and the other a faceless machine. In fact, you should treat each side the same, offering the pros and cons of each position. Some news organizations I’ve worked for have been so picky about this that I had to count the number of words written about each side to make sure they were equal (or at least very close to equal). Placement of quotes is also important. Ever heard of “getting the last word”? It’s the same in writing - the last quote is often what the reader remembers from the article. This is Journalism 101.
Now, a writer for Time is no doubt familiar with these principles. Therefore, I am wondering why he/she wrote such an article on such a controversial subject from one point of view only.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Or you could seek the Truth and stick with it.
R
RHC
Guest
Incidentally, the writer of the second piece is Tim Padgett, who also wrote a caustic opinion piece on the Vatican’s statement about the ordination of women. Among other things, he calls the bishops (and, presumably, the Holy Father) “a bunch of homophobes wearing miters.” 
My apologies to Il Papa and the bishops, but I think it’s safe to say that this particular writer is not unbiased. Whether his personal opinions influenced his news piece, I leave for you to discern for yourself.
His opinion piece/rant loosely connects claims that Jesus wanted Mary of Bethany to be like Peter and the other Apostles (making her an Apostle), the Church’s sex scandal, alleged homophobia, and women’s ordination. To me, it seemed like a quasi-incoherent rant about all of that writer’s grievances with the Church and a platform to claim that “real Catholics” like him are at great odds with the Magisterium.
My apologies to Il Papa and the bishops, but I think it’s safe to say that this particular writer is not unbiased. Whether his personal opinions influenced his news piece, I leave for you to discern for yourself.His opinion piece/rant loosely connects claims that Jesus wanted Mary of Bethany to be like Peter and the other Apostles (making her an Apostle), the Church’s sex scandal, alleged homophobia, and women’s ordination. To me, it seemed like a quasi-incoherent rant about all of that writer’s grievances with the Church and a platform to claim that “real Catholics” like him are at great odds with the Magisterium.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Exactly. It’s a not-so-subtle way of reinforcing the misconceptions of those like some in the Jesus seminar crowd and others who try to downplay or even deny the miraculous or the “God” in Christ in favor of over-emphasing the ‘man’ in Christ.
The ‘man’ couldn’t 'possibly buck the societal trends’.
The “God” obviously could have, had He wished to do so. But since some don’t want to present Christ as God so much as they want Christ as man, they will make that ridiculous, “Well, Jesus didn’t do this because of the society of the times”. Yeah, and as another poster noted, He’d already gone against the ‘society of the times’ throughout His whole ministry including His suffering and death on the cross --amazing that with all of that He simply couldn’t deal with the **JEWISH MALE PRIESTHOOD idea **–because of course, Gentiles had had ‘priestesses’ for millennia and wouldn’t have turned a hair. No, Jesus was ‘subject’ to a few rigid Jewish MEN regarding ‘female priests’ even though He wasn’t subject to those VERY SAME MEN when it came to salvation.
The ‘man’ couldn’t 'possibly buck the societal trends’.
The “God” obviously could have, had He wished to do so. But since some don’t want to present Christ as God so much as they want Christ as man, they will make that ridiculous, “Well, Jesus didn’t do this because of the society of the times”. Yeah, and as another poster noted, He’d already gone against the ‘society of the times’ throughout His whole ministry including His suffering and death on the cross --amazing that with all of that He simply couldn’t deal with the **JEWISH MALE PRIESTHOOD idea **–because of course, Gentiles had had ‘priestesses’ for millennia and wouldn’t have turned a hair. No, Jesus was ‘subject’ to a few rigid Jewish MEN regarding ‘female priests’ even though He wasn’t subject to those VERY SAME MEN when it came to salvation.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
LOL! We need to read everything we can - and discern.
C
cathgal
Guest
Time is intentionally misleading the public…
N
Nordar
Guest
N
Nordar
Guest
You understand perfectly, however Time in their delusion seem to think since they have said this it will be so. They really are in some altered state of reality that is way far removed from Catholicism.
N
Nordar
Guest
God in his infinate wisdom choose men to lead The Church, ours is not to question why.
J
JimG
Guest
“Fun journalism for kids!”
Oh, why not? The adults haven’t been in charge for a long time.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Exactly! Reading a variety of opinions about various subjects from numerous sources is one means of seeking the truth and trying to understand it.
T
Tigg
Guest
Really? And here all this time I thought that responsibile journalism was fair and objective.
Time is just another agent of the state-controlled media.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Bingo.For me, it wasn’t the fact that Time reported on these women who are claiming to be priestesses. That is news reporting - something unusual is going on (rogue bishop allegedly ordaining women) and it’s their job to report it. However, as a professional journalist, I think the article is possibly advocating change, which is not the job of news journalism. Here’s why.
A lot of space is given to making these women “sympathetic characters.” We’re told that they are mothers who just feel “called” to serve as priestesses. We learn about their lives outside the church. The reader sympathizes with them and identifies with them. However, the opposition (the Church) is given little space at all, and, when it is, it’s a faceless, unsympathetic “organization” or hierarchy. The reader is made to see the priestesses as unjustly “kept down” by this faceless organization. The priestesses are painted as sort of social martyrs on the altar of women’s rights.
Furthermore, any journalist worth his/her pay will tell you that controversial subjects, like this one, have to be treated carefully if the journalist is to remain objective. You can’t make one side sympathetic characters and the other a faceless machine. In fact, you should treat each side the same, offering the pros and cons of each position. Some news organizations I’ve worked for have been so picky about this that I had to count the number of words written about each side to make sure they were equal (or at least very close to equal). Placement of quotes is also important. Ever heard of “getting the last word”? It’s the same in writing - the last quote is often what the reader remembers from the article. This is Journalism 101.
Now, a writer for Time is no doubt familiar with these principles. Therefore, I am wondering why he/she wrote such an article on such a controversial subject from one point of view only.
- Status