Women demand greater say in future of Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know we cannot have ordained women, but I recall hearing on an old episode of Sunday Night Prime on EWTN that, in theory, women could be cardinals. Their argument went that a cardinal need not be ordained, not even to the diaconate, in order to be a cardinal–there could be lay cardinals. Such a lay cardinal, therefore, could be a woman.
I watched the news on Wednesday afternoon and CNN had on (among others) a former nun (who left the church to retain her lesbian relationship) and she made the statement that there was no reason a woman couldn’t be a cardinal; a minor tweak to the rules would allow it. Not surprisingly, her comment was inaccurate.Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate (the priesthood)…
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noted the number of threads that have just appeared whose topics are “change in the church”. This particular one is about women in the church but there are plenty of others prating on about whether there would be changes in the church’s position on homosexuality and contraception. Aside from the stunning degree of ignorance displayed by the people who suggest such things could actually happen we should recognize in all this the depth of the objections to the church and what she teaches. It will inevitably get more intense as their impossible objectives for her are not realized.

Ender
 
Actually, age 81 in 2013 = would put her around 36 years old, circa 1968 when Humanae Vitae came out and the Vietnam War and all sorts of countercultural upheaval was going on. Plus a lot of “spirit of Vatican II” changes taking place in convents. So it doesn’t surprise me that she clings to this; it was presented to her as a good thing at a time when lots of people were doing lots of questioning. It seemed like “fairness” and “justice” and “women’s liberation” and a promise of great things to come.

As for the female Pope story - I’m assuming you refer to “Pope Joan” - which has been dealt with by apologist Patrick Madrid: holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/patrickmadrid/popejoan.asp and also in his book Pope Fiction patrickmadrid.com/pope-fiction/.
I agree, completely, as to how this Sister was likely swayed into unhealthy ideology, even if I don’t understand why she is still so stubbornly adhering to it.

Thanks for the link to “Pope Joan”. I do believe that is the story I’ve been told. I’m not surprised, in the least, to see that it isn’t true. Besides, even if it WERE true, it hardly supports the idea that women should/could be ordained. All it would support, if true, is the idea that a deceitful human being could ascend to the position of Pope, alter nothing in the way of doctrine, only to be publicly shot down by God, Himself and/or punished in Hell.
 
Well, it wouldn’t have been a valid Papal election, so the point is moot!
 
It seems to me that you people are playing right into their hands,

“We want equality! We demand female ordination!”

“No, never! It can never happen! God has deemed it so!”

“We want equality! We demand female ordination!”

And on and on it goes.

And on and on.

If women truly are equal and valuable members of the Church, then why so much focus only on denying female ordination? Why not show and **explain ** how women are valuable equals to the Church? How and why is their role just as important as the role of men?

By not doing so, arguments against ordination make it sound as if you are trying to reinforce the inequity between men and women, rather than emphasizing the equally important roles that both genders play.

For example, SOOOO rarely is it mentioned in these discussions the important work that nuns do. Why? How are nuns and other women helping to lead and guide the Church? Why not explain these things? For not doing so, you really are playing right into their hands… as if you don’t think these roles are important. That is what is really disappointing to me!!!

How about we start asking, “many women are being led to believe that their role in the Church is lesser/inferior. What is causing them to accept and promote that view?”
Gang Green:
The problem is that women today don’t want “equality” they want supremacy.
This kind of remark really churns me. They obviously do not feel equal, in the sense that they are not being allowed to offer the sacraments or guide the Church’s practice, etc. Why make such an accusation when you could be explaining how women already have an equal role? Unless perhaps you don’t believe that?
 
It seems to me that you people are playing right into their hands,For example, SOOOO rarely is it mentioned in these discussions the important work that nuns do. Why? How are nuns and other women helping to lead and guide the Church? Why not explain these things?
You obviously haven’t read many of my posts on this issue, as I mention it often.
 
You obviously haven’t read many of my posts on this issue, as I mention it often.
Good job, then, Elizabeth. I’m sorry, I almost never see it mentioned. From what I’ve seen the focus is usually on “no, no, no”/separate but equal stuff. Sometimes I will see the talk about how Mary is so important and so on but that doesn’t really address the practical issue here. So, I think it’s very important to emphasize the crucial roles that women do play in the Church. Nuns, for example are so behind the scenes. We talk a lot about Priests but not so much about Nuns. If they have an equally valuable role then let’s go ahead and mention it like Elizabeth has been doing.
 
You obviously haven’t read many of my posts on this issue, as I mention it often.
😃 Probably it’s time to propose a sticky on the role of women in the Church. To follow previous proposal to have a sticky on the Loving case. 😃
 
It just gets more and more ridiculous.

Sadly, the Sister in charge of RCIA in my parish is of the “we need female priests!” variety (at the ripe old age of 81- you’d think she would have caught on to the sheer impossibility by now), whose favorite anecdote is about the Church having a female imposter Pope for a brief minute. Somehow she feels this lends an air of credibility to the claim that women can and should be ordained. I’ve never even bothered to check the historical accuracy of her claim, as the whole topic just rankles my last nerve and even if historically accurate, supplorts nothing, whatsoever.

People are too poorly catechized…and stubborn in their poor catechesis.
Ah yes…the rumoured Pope Joan
 
It seems to me that you people are playing right into their hands,

“We want equality! We demand female ordination!”

“No, never! It can never happen! God has deemed it so!”

“We want equality! We demand female ordination!”

And on and on it goes.

And on and on.

If women truly are equal and valuable members of the Church, then why so much focus only on denying female ordination? Why not show and **explain ** how women are valuable equals to the Church? How and why is their role just as important as the role of men?

By not doing so, arguments against ordination make it sound as if you are trying to reinforce the inequity between men and women, rather than emphasizing the equally important roles that both genders play.

For example, SOOOO rarely is it mentioned in these discussions the important work that nuns do. Why? How are nuns and other women helping to lead and guide the Church? Why not explain these things? For not doing so, you really are playing right into their hands… as if you don’t think these roles are important. That is what is really disappointing to me!!!

How about we start asking, “many women are being led to believe that their role in the Church is lesser/inferior. What is causing them to accept and promote that view?”

This kind of remark really churns me. They obviously do not feel equal, in the sense that they are not being allowed to offer the sacraments or guide the Church’s practice, etc. Why make such an accusation when you could be explaining how women already have an equal role? Unless perhaps you don’t believe that?
I totally agree. I have a vagina, am a new Catholic, and have a brain. What a 21st century idea!

The undercurrent of sexism on this board turns me off at times. And no, not about being a priest. I am not asking that. But I for one, will be a new female Catholic, that spreads and reinforces the amazing revelation of women being treated as equal in the church. And I’m not asking to be ordained, either. A lot of women are not asking to be ordained. We are asking to be treated as equals, which we are, and not the two choices which sexism seems to promote, which is either 1. Betty Crocker, or 2. a whore. I have experienced the aforementioned cases of sexism not only on this board, but in church as well, and it’s laughable. I love the CC, but the biggest single, number one thing that turns me off is the undercurrent of sexism that I have experienced in the last 12 months. And that is a sad thing.
 
I totally agree. I have a vagina, am a new Catholic, and have a brain. What a 21st century idea!

The undercurrent of sexism on this board turns me off at times. And no, not about being a priest. I am not asking that. But I for one, will be a new female Catholic, that spreads and reinforces the amazing revelation of women being treated as equal in the church. And I’m not asking to be ordained, either. A lot of women are not asking to be ordained. We are asking to be treated as equals, which we are, and not the two choices which sexism seems to promote, which is either 1. Betty Crocker, or 2. a whore. I have experienced the aforementioned cases of sexism not only on this board, but in church as well, and it’s laughable. I love the CC, but the biggest single, number one thing that turns me off is the undercurrent of sexism that I have experienced in the last 12 months. And that is a sad thing.
I lived through the “Women’s Liberation” movement in the 1970’s when radical feminists called men “male chauvenist pigs” who treated women as “sex objects.”
  1. How did that solve anything?
  2. Where were they when women were exploited as prostitutes when Adult Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars opened across the country? The male pigs were getting their fill and women were being exploited to the max.
  3. It was all about death to Betty Crocker and death to the family and death to your child in the womb. THAT was their idea of Liberation. Not ‘let’s try to work on the real problems between some men and some women.’ Oh no. They wanted constant, ongoing warfare.
  4. When No-Fault Divorce hit, after years of creating distrust and demonizing all men in the 1970s, yeah, it was women who decided the man they were with was disposable. NO, I’m not talking about spousal abuse or being a threat to the children, I’m talking about classified ads that I saw in the 1980s that read: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” Oh yeah, LAWYERS turned marriage into nothing but a piece of paper. Sign, pay and you’re out.
The President of the National Organization of Women thinks legalizing prostitution is a good idea. And Betty Crocker? She’s dead. And every time she tries to rise from the grave, the “sisters” get together to beat her body back into the ground.

www.now.org/

Death good. Family bad. Men? A joke.

Peace,
Ed
 
The undercurrent of sexism on this board turns me off at times.
As a woman, I would have to see examples. As you can see, I have been on this board since fall of 2008.
I for one, will be a new female Catholic, that spreads and reinforces the amazing revelation of women being treated as equal in the church. And I’m not asking to be ordained, either. A lot of women are not asking to be ordained. We are asking to be treated as equals, which we are
As has been pointed out on other threads (perhaps some prior to one year ago), this is an ambiguous phrase without a context. “Being treated as equals?” Does this, to you, mean the same functions as men? (Even though you do state that ordination is not an interest or issue of yours.) Right now, women are the principle catechists in the Roman Church, everywhere. As a teacher myself (not curently catechetically), I find the role of the teacher to be quite influential, and in the catechetical setting, one is forming people spiritually (including on the adult level).

Women have elevated positions in Catholic school education, such as leading the diocese in Catholic school curriculum, such as developing materials both for religious education and secular subjects. They lead retreats in many locations, sometimes exclusively. They head up a whole range of ministries in the parishes and in the Church – from social justice to music to spirituality (prayer groups, scripture study, women’s journeys). Independently, women can act as spiritual directors in the Church. It is not necessary to be ordained to be a spiritual director, and some of them are very effective, and many of them are considered very needed.

Women are very visible in the pro-life movement and prominent in Catholic media. Teresa Tomeo, Mother Angelica, and Johnette Benkovic would all be very surprised to learn that “they are not being treated as equals.” (Those are just 3 of many examples.) Wherever parishes are near intellectual centers, such as Catholic colleges and theology schools, learned women are often invited to speak on some rarefied topic at the local parish.

Women head up independent religious congregations and communities, with a great deal of autonomy in that respect. There are also some women with important consultant roles in the Vatican.

What can they not do? They cannot be ordained. (You claim that doesn’t interest you.) Therefore, they cannot move up through the ranks to administrative levels such as bishop and cardinal. Therefore, they cannot participate directly in the election of any Pope. (The vast majority of Catholic men --lay, clergy, and religious-- also cannot participate directly. ;))

It’s also important to note that priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope himself are, at various points in their careers, anywhere from lightly to heavily influenced by women. That influence contributes indirectly and sometimes very powerfully to their formation. Of course, the more aware men understand that and sometimes speak about it. But whether or not they speak about it, formation also influences decisions. When, for example, the Cardinals prepare for a new papal election, implicitly they are thinking of the whole Church, not half of the Church. If they are men of prayer – and charitably we assume they are – they have considered and will consider the needs of women who have expressed those needs to them – in person, in the confessional, in spiritual direction, in marital counseling & preparation, in friendships both personal and professional they share with women.

I take a little bit of offense at what seems to be implied in your tone – that being male somehow inevitably means excluding the needs of women. In the 19th century and early 20th, probably, and it was true of non-Catholic males as well. In the 21st? Seldom.
and not the two choices which sexism seems to promote, which is either 1. Betty Crocker, or 2. a whore.
Are you getting your information from the dated TV show, Mad Men? In fact, the Catholic Church is one of the few places in the modern world that it seems that women are not treated as one of those two extremes – especially as #2.
I have experienced the aforementioned cases of sexism not only on this board, but in church as well, and it’s laughable. I love the CC, but the biggest single, number one thing that turns me off is the undercurrent of sexism that I have experienced in the last 12 months. And that is a sad thing.
(1) You’d have to give at least some general excamples of this on CAF, such as thread titles or subjects
(2) You’d also have to give some examples “in church” as well, for me personally to believe such a sweeping statement. (We have altar girls and women at one of my local parishes, and most of the lectors are female as well, as are the EMHC’s.)
 
As a woman, I would have to see examples. As you can see, I have been on this board since fall of 2008.

As has been pointed out on other threads (perhaps some prior to one year ago), this is an ambiguous phrase without a context. “Being treated as equals?” Does this, to you, mean the same functions as men? (Even though you do state that ordination is not an interest or issue of yours.) Right now, women are the principle catechists in the Roman Church, everywhere. As a teacher myself (not curently catechetically), I find the role of the teacher to be quite influential, and in the catechetical setting, one is forming people spiritually (including on the adult level).

Women have elevated positions in Catholic school education, such as leading the diocese in Catholic school curriculum, such as developing materials both for religious education and secular subjects. They lead retreats in many locations, sometimes exclusively. They head up a whole range of ministries in the parishes and in the Church – from social justice to music to spirituality (prayer groups, scripture study, women’s journeys). Independently, women can act as spiritual directors in the Church. It is not necessary to be ordained to be a spiritual director, and some of them are very effective, and many of them are considered very needed.

Women are very visible in the pro-life movement and prominent in Catholic media. Teresa Tomeo, Mother Angelica, and Johnette Benkovic would all be very surprised to learn that “they are not being treated as equals.” (Those are just 3 of many examples.) Wherever parishes are near intellectual centers, such as Catholic colleges and theology schools, learned women are often invited to speak on some rarefied topic at the local parish.

Women head up independent religious congregations and communities, with a great deal of autonomy in that respect. There are also some women with important consultant roles in the Vatican.

What can they not do? They cannot be ordained. (You claim that doesn’t interest you.) Therefore, they cannot move up through the ranks to administrative levels such as bishop and cardinal. Therefore, they cannot participate directly in the election of any Pope. (The vast majority of Catholic men --lay, clergy, and religious-- also cannot participate directly. ;))

It’s also important to note that priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope himself are, at various points in their careers, anywhere from lightly to heavily influenced by women. That influence contributes indirectly and sometimes very powerfully to their formation. Of course, the more aware men understand that and sometimes speak about it. But whether or not they speak about it, formation also influences decisions. When, for example, the Cardinals prepare for a new papal election, implicitly they are thinking of the whole Church, not half of the Church. If they are men of prayer – and charitably we assume they are – they have considered and will consider the needs of women who have expressed those needs to them – in person, in the confessional, in spiritual direction, in marital counseling & preparation, in friendships both personal and professional they share with women.

I take a little bit of offense at what seems to be implied in your tone – that being male somehow inevitably means excluding the needs of women. In the 19th century and early 20th, probably, and it was true of non-Catholic males as well. In the 21st? Seldom.

Are you getting your information from the dated TV show, Mad Men? In fact, the Catholic Church is one of the few places in the modern world that it seems that women are not treated as one of those two extremes – especially as #2.

(1) You’d have to give at least some general excamples of this on CAF, such as thread titles or subjects
(2) You’d also have to give some examples “in church” as well, for me personally to believe such a sweeping statement. (We have altar girls and women at one of my local parishes, and most of the lectors are female as well, as are the EMHC’s.)
This is just an outstanding post! You mention Teresa Tomeo, Mother Angelica, and Johnette Benkovic. My goodness, I respect the daylights out of these gifted women. I listen to Johnette and Teresa Tomeo practically everyday on EWTN Radio. I’ll tell you another woman who’s right there with them, and that’s Colleen Carroll Campbell. And Mother’s Sisters, The Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration. I love them dearly and I think the absolute world of them! You bet there are great Catholic women who contribute ginourmously to the faith. Heck, my two favorite Saints are both women. St. Bernadette and the Little Flower. And who can forget my Mama Maria…enough said!

Peace, Mark
 
This is just an outstanding post! You mention Teresa Tomeo, Mother Angelica, and Johnette Benkovic. My goodness, I respect the daylights out of these gifted women. I listen to Johnette and Teresa Tomeo practically everyday on EWTN Radio. I’ll tell you another woman who’s right there with them, and that’s Colleen Carroll Campbell. And Mother’s Sisters, The Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration. I love them dearly and I think the absolute world of them! You bet there are great Catholic women who contribute ginourmously to the faith. Heck, my two favorite Saints are both women. St. Bernadette and the Little Flower. And who can forget my Mama Maria…enough said!

Peace, Mark
More great isight from Mark. 🙂

Indeed, brother. How could I forget Colleen Carroll Campbell, hosting commentators in St. Peter’s Square last week? She’s intelligent, dignified, gifted. She is simultaenously a career woman and wife & mother. Well yes too, to the strongest saint of them all, Mary, filled with power. Therese of the Child Jesus, Julian of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, on and on. I also love Mother Angelica’s sisters. I was only trying to stay with modern and visible examples for our friend on the thread.

A little detail when it comes to women at the parish level. Overwhelmingly, women prepare candidates for the sacraments of First Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, and are, percentage-wise, more represented as Directors of Religious Education (the whole shabang) than are men. (And that would include RCIA.) That’s as close as you can get to the sacraments without actually being a priest. Priests simply don’t have time for all of that. They would die an early death from exhaustion trying to keep up. Anyone can see that women are not just “important.” They are essential to the running of the Church, locally and globally and they are essential to the spirituality of the Church as well. Without women playing such an active role in the Roman Church, local parishes would collapse, quite literally.
 
But I for one, will be a new female Catholic, that spreads and reinforces the amazing revelation of women being treated as equal in the church. And I’m not asking to be ordained, either.
What in the world does "new female Catholic that spreads and reinforces the amazing revelation of women being treated as equal in the church " mean? Where does St Clare of Assisi fit into your concept of “new”?
I love the CC, but the biggest single, number one thing that turns me off is the undercurrent of sexism that I have experienced in the last 12 months. And that is a sad thing
Sweeping statements of sexism based on personal experience is rather worrying because one ought to look beyond one’s perception within one’s square foot of soil. Priests have not stopped kneeling in prayer to Our Lady as well as honour and respect for our women saints, mystics, doctors, martyrs, etc. .
 
Like the priest in the news story, I’m sympathetic to the frustration many faithful Catholic women feel about the limited authority they have in the Church.

I say “authority” because that is really what it boils down to. Right now, all authority is invested in the sacramental priesthood - but is that really the way it is supposed to be? I’m not sure. To say that a priest stands in the person of Christ during the consecration of the Eucharist is one thing, but to claim that all authority in the Church stems from that is something else entirely.

I believe a hermeneutic that seriously considers this issue of authority needs to be developed with respect to the role of women in the life of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. Personally, I see current Church doctrine regarding Theotokos, Mary Magdelene, Martha, Mary of Bethany and the Samaritan woman to be seriously underdeveloped - and in the case of Mary Magdelene the tradition needs to be actively corrected.
 
Like the priest in the news story, I’m sympathetic to the frustration many faithful Catholic women feel about the limited authority they have in the Church.

I say “authority” because that is really what it boils down to. Right now, all authority is invested in the sacramental priesthood - but is that really the way it is supposed to be? I’m not sure. To say that a priest stands in the person of Christ during the consecration of the Eucharist is one thing, but to claim that all authority in the Church stems from that is something else entirely.

I believe a hermeneutic that seriously considers this issue of authority needs to be developed with respect to the role of women in the life of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. Personally, I see current Church doctrine regarding Theotokos, Mary Magdelene, Martha, Mary of Bethany and the Samaritan woman to be seriously underdeveloped - and in the case of Mary Magdelene the tradition needs to be actively corrected.
Could you define what type of authority you think is needed?

Peace,
Ed
 
Right now, all authority is invested in the sacramental priesthood - but is that really the way it is supposed to be? I’m not sure. To say that a priest stands in the person of Christ during the consecration of the Eucharist is one thing, but to claim that all authority in the Church stems from that is something else entirely.
I don’t know what you include in your definition of authority but it is surely true that women are permanently excluded from whatever authority is invested in the priesthood. As to whether that is the way it is supposed to be the church has been unambiguous in answering that: this is an infallible teaching. If the church is wrong on this point then her claim to the truth in everything else is false as the basis for that claim would be shown to be false. This point is no more debatable than the perpetual virginity of Mary; it is not something the church can ever change.

As for women having a greater “say” in the “future” of the church that demand is vague in the extreme. What does that mean? If what is being expressed is a desire to shape doctrine (although reverse and redefine are probably more accurate terms) then, no, this cannot happen except through the influence common to theologians. If what is meant, however, is a change in the church’s interaction with the world then women already have the authority to do that, both outside and from within the church.

I am not a fan of euphemisms. It would clarify the discussion greatly if someone would specify exactly what was meant by giving women a “greater say in the future of the church”.

Ender
 
I don’t know what you include in your definition of authority but it is surely true that women are permanently excluded from whatever authority is invested in the priesthood. As to whether that is the way it is supposed to be the church has been unambiguous in answering that: this is an infallible teaching. If the church is wrong on this point then her claim to the truth in everything else is false as the basis for that claim would be shown to be false. This point is no more debatable than the perpetual virginity of Mary; it is not something the church can ever change.

As for women having a greater “say” in the “future” of the church that demand is vague in the extreme. What does that mean? If what is being expressed is a desire to shape doctrine (although reverse and redefine are probably more accurate terms) then, no, this cannot happen except through the influence common to theologians. If what is meant, however, is a change in the church’s interaction with the world then women already have the authority to do that, both outside and from within the church.

I am not a fan of euphemisms. It would clarify the discussion greatly if someone would specify exactly what was meant by giving women a “greater say in the future of the church”.

Ender
Teaching authority, specifically in relation to the Apostolic Tradition:

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

This is all good and true, but I do not find the argument that Jesus choose only men to be his Apostles convincing. First there is Paul - who was not even among the followers of Jesus. Then there is the Samaritan woman. And finally there is Mary Magdalene, the “Apostle to the Apostles” - the Church has made some effort to rehabilitate her reputation, but it has not taken that second step towards really examining what the significance of her mission (received directly from the risen Christ) means with respect to his choosing of a woman to be the first person to announce his Resurrection.

I can buy the argument that only men can be priests, because at the moment of the Consecration of the Eucharist, they stand in for the person of Jesus. However, in his role as teacher, Jesus seemed perfectly fine revealing his true nature to particular women and then telling them to go and tell others about it.

Then there is Theotokos and her role as the catalyst for the public ministry of Jesus. It seems to imply some type of authority to instruct that is tied to the role of mother - even if your son is God himself. However, I have read nothing that examines the theological implication of this with respect to the vocation of motherhood. Have you?

I am not proposing anything in particular, but I would like better answers to these questions. However, I’m not going to hold my breathe expecting that any of them will be addressed anytime soon. There are too many other important issues occupying the minds of the hierarchy at this point and the world is not ready for it.

Unity among Catholics first, then reform, then disorganization, then unity again - that seems to be the pattern that emerges when the Holy Spirit must work within the limitations of human nature. I’m OK with that.
 
I can buy the argument that only men can be priests, because at the moment of the Consecration of the Eucharist, they stand in for the person of Jesus. However, in his role as teacher, Jesus seemed perfectly fine revealing his true nature to particular women and then telling them to go and tell others about it.
If you accept that only men can be priests then you have accepted that the teaching authority of the church excludes women since:(CCC 85) “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
Women can certainly “go tell others” but what they cannot do is “give authentic interpretation” since that role is restricted exclusively to the bishops.

Ender
 
This is just an outstanding post! You mention Teresa Tomeo, Mother Angelica, and Johnette Benkovic. My goodness, I respect the daylights out of these gifted women. I listen to Johnette and Teresa Tomeo practically everyday on EWTN Radio. I’ll tell you another woman who’s right there with them, and that’s Colleen Carroll Campbell. And Mother’s Sisters, The Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration. I love them dearly and I think the absolute world of them! You bet there are great Catholic women who contribute ginourmously to the faith. Heck, my two favorite Saints are both women. St. Bernadette and the Little Flower. And who can forget my Mama Maria…enough said!

Peace, Mark
What a brilliant post. I myself have a great sense of Marian devotion. I am a major fan of Teresa Tomeo, Colleen Carroll Campbell, and Johnette Benkovic (“Women of Grace”). Teresa of Avila is one of my favorite saints. And what can one say about Faustina or Therese of Lisieux?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top