"Women priests are possible, says new Vatican finance council member"

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The National Catholic Reporter is not a Catholic site. They are a progressive site promoting heresy. It is no different than, Catholics for Choice. Again, not representing Catholicism in any way.
 
The supreme irony in all of this, of course, is that she has no authority to declare that women priests are possible, much less make it a reality. Neither does the Church itself. The Church only has what authority Christ gave it. And Christ didn’t give the Church the authority or the ability to ordain women. All the wishing and declaring in the world won’t change that.
 
Good to see the new appointees making their mark. We can discuss the value women bring to various discussions that may have been traditionally dominated by men, but is it too much to ask in both cases that they actually A) know what the Church teaches, and, B) adhere to it?

There are 3.9 billion females on the planet, give or take. You get to choose six women for landmark positions in Christ’s Church, aaaannnnnnd you couldn’t find six faithful ones? Come on…
 
Hmmm…looks like the new appointee to the finance committee mistakenly thought she was appointed to the magisterium.

Just us a reminder to new people at CAF who may not know better. Pope John Paul II put this issue to rest…FOREVER:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...p-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Is it sexist to point out that I’m not surprised this comes from someone with a hyphenated last name?
 
KMC said:
Hmmm…looks like the new appointee to the finance committee mistakenly thought she was appointed to the magisterium.
Click to expand...
Lol.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
There are 3.9 billion females on the planet, give or take. You get to choose six women for landmark positions in Christ’s Church, aaaannnnnnd you couldn’t find six faithful ones? Come on…
Click to expand...
My guess is they weren’t even asked. If they were I’m sure they wanted to be ‘inclusive’.
 
Rather odd at least, what is the objection to hyphenated names?
[/quote]

no objection…slight tongue-in-cheek comment based on the observation that many liberal women have hyphenated names.
 
I don’t much care what a lay law professor with zero influence over this subject thinks of it. Her opinion isn’t going to change anything, since she is working in finance, so it’s just another law professor spouting off, which they do all day long for a living at universities.
 
Last edited:
My husband and I thought they were silly. One reason they sound silly to many US people is that they sound like English upper class, which conjures up all kinds of images to 'Murricans, mostly along the lines of either the British royal family, or of Hyacinth Bucket putting on airs.

Another reason they seem silly is that often they get so long they don’t fit in the spaces for “name” on forms or they are a real pain to write out. It’s one thing if the last name is Burne-Jones, nice and short; but something else again if it’s Szentkiralyi - Mcnamara. And heaven help us if two people with hyphenated names married and made four hyphenated names all run together…
 
Last edited:
Ha! When I married, hyphenated names were just starting and not very accepted yet. I was so glad to finally be rid of my maiden name. It was a short last name that almost no one pronounced correctly and my husbands was a nice common English name. I was quite proud to take it.

When hyphenated names became more common, we had a terrible time at work with our computers that wouldn’t accept a hyphen. We also had a letter limit. Both minimum and maximum which created an issue with an Asian gentleman with the last name of O. I think we finally put him in as Oo…to his horror!

Then there are the Hispanic last names that list three or more generations of family names! We would only use the last one or else no one could later locate them in the medical records department. Why do we feel this is liberating? Or reasonable?
 
I always thought the name changing was an administrative nightmare now that women have stuff like credit cards, loans, professional licenses, etc in their own names. I have known female lawyers who changed everything including their bar licenses, drivers licenses and passports to a new name when they married, and then got divorced a few years later and changed everything back to their previous name again. Ain’t nobody got time for that! I kept my own name (as I had planned to do since I was about 16), husband kept his, and if we had had children they would have taken his last name just as I took my father’s. Neither one of us had to file a single name-change paper.
 
Last edited:
I always assumed that if I ever got divorced (which thankfully hasn’t happened after 47 yrs) that I would still keep my married name. I have several co workers that kept their maiden name like you. My daughter also has kept our name. For many, as long as they are pleased with their maiden names, I see no reason to change them and with divorces all over the map, makes pretty good sense, too!

The only issue would be if the husband feels hurt over it. That’s for the couple to work out…
 
A man who felt hurt over me not taking his name definitely would NOT have wanted to go out with me twice 🙂 because believe me, I did more exasperating stuff than that on a weekly if not daily basis!

I never fussed if anyone referred to me as “Mrs. Husbandname” and I would even call myself that from time to time when it was expedient (like dealing with some bill that was in husband’s last name) but from a legal standpoint, as in official identifictions, signatures on loans and the tax return etc, I was “Ms. Wifename”. Husband got called “Mr. Wifename” from time to time, but he wasn’t bothered by it.
 
Last edited:
Because I was more than happy to take my husbands name, it never came up but if I had wanted to keep my name, his response most likely would have been…Sure! He was never particularly into men’s and women’s roles perhaps due to losing his mother at age 5. He grew up with all chores being done by men…his father, brother and himself. Also, he loved doing all the stuff required of babies. He never gave a second thought to changing a diaper, laundry, dishes, etc. He drew the line at nursing, however! 🤣🤣🤣. If he had been capable, he probably would have done that as well. Because of never playing the sex roles, he became an awesome father…better at times than I was as a mother!

It’s not like I was a women’s libber, either. I’m mixed on those views. I was raised to believe women can do anything they set their minds to and to be realistic as to what we are capable of doing.
 
My first thought as well.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
cf. 2 Tim. 4:3

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Really? Her expertise seems to be in this: Forest property and nature conservation: The constitutional protection of forest property in the State Nature Conservation Act of North Rhine-Westphalia. This book was co-authored with what appears to be her husband. She is a lawyer, not an economist or a theologian.
 
Let’s look on the bright side. Pope Francis appointed 6 lay women to leadership positions, and so far only one of them has decided to make a speech about women priests to the press. The other 5 are refraining from that sort of thing and doing their jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top