Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Cincinnati Archbishop Dumps Heretic

Signs of the times.

...Sister of Charity Louise Akers has been told by Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk to publicly disassociate herself from the issue of women’s ordination if she wishes to continue making any presentations or teaching for credit in any archdiocesan-related institutions.

Sr. Akers refused to do so.

Her stance leaves her unable to make presentations at archdiocesan-sponsored events, to conduct retreats or reflection days, and to teach courses on any subject at sites that are directly related to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

Kudos to Abp. Pilarczyk!

HT: Ten Reasons


Neo-Con Tastic said...


A male feminist said...

Please note the definition of "heresy" below.

Disagreeing with a Church law is not "heresy."

* Main Entry: her·e·sy
* Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural her·e·sies
* Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
* Date: 13th century

1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

GOR said...

"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."

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Pope John Paul II. May 1994.

"definitively held" is not a matter for prudential judgment - dissenting bishops, priests and wacky nuns, notwithstanding.

Dad29 said...

Clearly, "male feminist's" reading comprehension was demolished by estrogen overload.

The male priesthood is definitively held, and the nun-heretic disgrees.

RAG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RAG said...

Hold your horses, folks.

I think the Archbishop was at least half-right here.

Certainly it's inappropriate for a religious to, in essence, wage treason against the church. Like it or not, she is bound by church teachings. Certainly as such the archbishop was free to restrict her advocacy.

The trickier part comes in the area of "like it or not" because there is still freedom of conscience in the church and respect for inquiry and dialogue. Of course, belief, inquiry and dialogue is a far cry from advocacy.

Dad29 said...

There's a BIG difference between 'inquiry' and 'dissent.'

Like it or not, the question Akers "inquires" (actually, dissents) on is settled. It is defined. It cannot be changed.

It's not like she's asking about the translation of some obscure Hebrew term here.

RAG said...

Dad, I don't think you and I are too far from agreement here BUT what if the pope decided to permit ordinantion of women tomorrow? What would you say then?

(For the record, I think a more compelling issue for the church is whether or how to allow the service of married men.)

Dad29 said...

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

The Pope will not do that, any more than he will declare that the Trinity is really a Duopoly. May as well discuss rain falling up.

I agree a more interesting (but not 'compelling') question is that of married men/priests.

Anonymous said...

Absolute spiritual assassination. Why would Jesus NOT want women and married priests? Because "tradition" dictates? Doesn't the Bible say that the first person to see Jesus be resurrected would be Jesus' replacement as head of his ministry. That was Mary Magdalene.

Slavery was justified under Christian pretenses. We have our modern day version.

Dad29 said...

Slavery was NOT "justified" under Christian pretense. It was tolerated. Big difference.

Perhaps you have a citation for your claim that 'the first to see...' b/c nobody else ever saw that, except Dan Brown, fictionalist.

No, "tradition" does not dictate that. Christ ordained men only. So Christ 'dictated' that.