Womanpriest ordained in non-Catholic church in Orinda

Oakland diocese: ‘Nothing to do with us’
Truelson- photo by Sora O'Doherty

Truelson- photo by Sora O’Doherty

The following comes from a June 29 story in Lamorinda Weekly.

Joanna Truelson took a big step in her spirituality last when the Orinda resident was ordained a Roman Catholic womanpriest at a ceremony at the Orinda Community Church June 25.

The ordination, the first of its type in Orinda, was under the auspices of Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an organization founded in 2002 in Germany. The officiant was womanbishop Olivia Doko of San Luis Obispo, who was ordained a womanpriest in 2006 and a womanbishop in 2010. During the ordination Bishop Doko stated, “We are not restricted by the past.”

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests describes itself as a renewal movement within the Catholic church that began in Germany with the ordination of seven women on the Danube River in 2002. After the ordination of the first priests, women have also been ordained womenbishops so that, according to the Roman Catholic Womenpriests, they continue to ordain priests in the Apostolic succession.

Roman Catholic Womenpriests claims that the ordinations they perform are “valid but illicit,” as they are in violation of Canon Law. But they believe that they are in conformance with Apostolic Succession. RCWP has members in 28 states of the United States and Europe, Canada, South America and South Africa. RCWP says it has four ordained womenbishops, (and an additional two retired), 10 womendeacons and approximately 90 ordained womenpriests.

Of course, none of this is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. When asked to comment on the ordination of Truelson, Helen Osman, Interim Director of Communications for the Oakland Diocese said the ordination “may be in the geographical area of the diocese, but this ordination has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, just as an ordination for any other church within the geographical area of the diocese has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland.”

According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which collects statistics on Catholicism in the United States, in 2015 there were 37,578 Catholic priests in the U.S. for a total Catholic population of 68.1 million. There were 3,533 parishes that had no resident pastor and the number of active diocesan priests per parish has been steadily declining from two in 1965 to one in 2015.

Truelson was raised in New York and studied nursing at Belle-view Hospital. After moving to California, she obtaining a BSN degree, and a master’s from the University of California San Francisco, with a major in Mental Health Nursing Administration. She worked as a medical surgical pediatric coordinator for 24 years. Following a year in which her father died and she got divorced, with two young children, age two and five, she changed her profession to realtor, which allowed her to spend more time with her children.

Truelson found a program called “A Course in Miracles.” First she took the course; now she acts as a facilitator. She followed Matthew Fox from Holy Names College to his own University of Creation Spirituality, and in 2000 obtained the degree of Doctor of Ministry. (Fox was an ordained Catholic priest who was expelled from the Dominican Order and later became an Episcopalian priest.) Truelson later attended the Chaplaincy Institute in Berkeley, and was ordained an Interfaith Minister, also in the year 2000.

Since then, she has traveled all over the world on volunteer missions. She attended the Parliament of World Religions in South Africa and has worked with Airline Ambassadors International (AAI), a registered charitable nonprofit organization that donates and distributes millions of dollars in aid to clinics, schools, orphanages and programs in 52 countries. With AAI she went on a medical mission to Haiti, and has traveled on such medical missions to South East Asia, Russia and Siberia.

Now Truelson feels that she has found her home in the RCWP.

Truelson has been a Womenpriest deacon, and is a founding member of Namaste Catholic Community in Orinda, which meets for Mass on the second and forth Saturdays of each month at the Orinda Community Church.

Truelson imagines that, had she been alive at the time of Luther, she probably would have followed him. The Catholic church changes, she thinks, when enough people leave, and she thinks that now people are leaving the church. She also believes that Pope Francis, although he has stated that “the door is closed” to the ordination of women priests, is working for small changes that may, eventually lead to the acceptance of women priests.

Truelson admits that she has tried the Episcopalians, but, although they have been ordaining women priests for 40 years, she found them too restrictive. For example, she said, some accept gays, and some do not.

Ultimately, she says, her desire to become a Roman Catholic priest is about standing up to power. And the Womenpriest movement adheres as closely as possible to the conventional route to priesthood so that, someday, perhaps, when the Catholic church decides to accept women priests, they will be ready.

But what will happen when she is excommunicated? Truelson laughs. “When I first got divorced, I was told that I could no longer receive the sacraments” she recalls. She went to the Newman Center in Berkeley then. But when she wanted to remarry, the Newman Center would not perform the ceremony. She parted with the Newman Center and shortly thereafter she parted from her second husband. “We make mistakes” she said, “and we forgive ourselves and others.”

According to Truelson, her religion is all about love and inclusiveness. If you find that a religion is about judgments and fear, she said, you are on the wrong path. She believes in the resurrection, but as to an afterlife, her views are unconventional. “I believe that heaven is here right now,” she said, and that is about loving each other and connecting.



To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.


  1. First of all, she was not ordained; she invalidly attempted ordination. Second, even if she were a male she wouldn’t have been approved for ordination by any Roman Catholic authority because of her wacky beliefs that depart from the apostolic faith. Oh, wait: the Jesuits might approve a male with Truelson’s beliefs for ordination.

    That woman is representative of how spiritually clueless and dopey participants in the womynpriest movement are. Their faith isn’t Catholic in the least.

    • Hosemonkey says:

      If you go down to the thrift store and buy a Marine uniform and your neighbor, who served for two years in the Marine Corps says that you are indeed a Marine, are you, in fact, a Marine? Of course not. The instant that the “Bishop” who “ordained” those seven women on the Danube in 2002, all participants were excommicated and rendering all sacraments null and void.

    • FromThePew says:

      Sawyer, you are so right. This article is a total waste of print & time. No ordination. No way. No priestess. Just another person in a costume, saying foolish things. (Like Bruce Jenner in his current costume.) Most Catholics in the pew aren’t fooled by these ‘Aggravate the Catholic’ type articles. What she believes is moot. Her actions are null & void. Pray for her immortal soul. And God help her is she drags any other poor souls away with her ‘heresy’. Just another way for the lame stream press to use a poor misguided soul against the Church. Thanks be to God, the Catholic church is clear on this one, They say: ‘NO Priestess’. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell…….

      • FromThePew says:

        Continued……typo correction, should read…..And God help her IF (not is) she drags any other poor souls away with her ‘heresy’.

    • A child of Mary says:

      Oh, my gosh. I thought I had heard all the wackos stories that ever were, but
      this one sure gave me a laugh…..and much more to pity her….” looking for love
      in all the wrong places”………..girl, unscrew your head and start over by going
      to a shrink and confession then lock yourself up in some cave and eat locusts
      and honey….we’ll keep you and your gang in prayer.

  2. But really folks, Truelson’s disobedience is almost not that different in spirit to the disobedience I oftentimes read in these pages: from folks who castigate the bishops, priests, and even the Pope.

    For example, she believes her ordination is “valid but illicit.” Why, isn’t that the same phrase I sometimes hear about these SSPX Masses in their chapels?

    Secondly, Truelson believes her desire to be “ordained” comes from her desire to “stand up to power.” Why, isn’t that the same reasoning I hear from some of the vociferous folks here to incessantly castigate the Magisterium? They are “standing up to power” for the sake of “tradition,” neglecting the fact that it isn’t in the tradition at all to publicly and…

    • cowardly castigate the Magisterium.

      Her disobedience is akin in spirit to that of many here, albeit varying in degree and kind. Repent people, repent.

      • Anonymous says:

        Jon, as a good Catholic, if you were sitting in a class taught by the Holy Father, or one of his bishops– lets say, a favorite prelate of the Pope’s, Cardinal Marx (who often contradicts Church teachings!)– and if you disagreed with him, for well-thought-out reasons, or wanted clarification on some point– you know, jon, you are free to discuss the points with the teacher, and free to say, “I disagree,” the same way that Cardinal Sarah, for example will say, that he disagrees with the Holy Father! Every devout Catholic student does that, and it is quite normal! It does not mean that you are against the Church, and are now a “heretic!” Hope you see that!

        • Totally wrong ANonymous. No good Catholic says to the Holy Father, “I disagree” on matters of faith and morals. Now if you propose that that is “normal” for a Catholic to do, then you are no different from a liberal cafeteria Catholic who merely picks-and-chooses what to believe from the buffet line! You’re wrong totally. We as members of the Church are called to UNITY, in faith and in spirit. We’re not a social club. Folks, this is basic stuff. I am astonished at the low level of argumentation I am encountering here. Pitiful.

          • Anonymous says:

            jon, maybe YOU are the one “lone Catholic,” next to the Pope and his buddies, such as Cardinal Marx, and a great many others– faith and morals are getting more and more scarce, in the Vatican! Don’t kid yourself! Your head is definitely hiding in the sand! Pitiful, pitiful jon– who believes in a Pope and his buddies– so false to God! YOU are the “lone believer,” jon, next to the Pope and his Cardinal buddies! Now– “Who am I to judge?” And let’s all re-read the Pope’s airplane press conference (or watch the video) — and DIE OF LAUGHTER at you!

          • Be warned Anonymous that you are violating Canon Law by inciting animosity against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. You will someday have to answer for your words and your disobedience. Lord Have Mercy on your soul.

      • Justin K. says:

        My, how “jon,” pontificating endlessly in his many deceptions, self-contradictions and jontifical word-games, now drops the mask and shows his true divisive and aggressive character, all in his pious service of the Church.

        Next he will try to justify his now-overt hostility toward those of a different view by wrapping himself, as most sociopaths do, in his higher cause that it is “for the good of the Church.”

        • Folks, the statement you read above from O Justin contains no substantial argument on the issue. Examine the point very well, and recognize its flummery and fluff. It’s full of ad hominem attacks, which is the last recourse who have lost the argument on the substance of the issues. Pitiful.

          • Justin K says:

            I would expect “jon” to twist objective criticism of his usual misleading and mischaracterizing techniques into a personal attack. Yet another deception.

            The substance of the matter is the overt hostility jon displays, over and over, toward Catholics of tradition, calling them “cowards”, “trolls”, and shamefully equivocating them with the WomenPriest/WomenChurch group. .

          • Again O Justin you are wrong. WHy are you wrong? Because I love the traditions of the Church, having been attending the TLM regularly. My hostility is aimed at disobedience. That you are feeling “hostility” most likely means that you are disobedient.

            But be under no illusion here. The treatment of the folks here vis-a-vis those who love the Mass of Paul VI (which also includes me) has been vitriolic, contemptuous, sulphuric, and venomous. People here have referred to them in no charitable terms. As for me, I called folks here the way I see them: disobedient, dissenting, vociferous, cowards. WHat else would you call someone who hides in his anonymity while castigating publicly shepherds of the Church. This is condemned in…

          • Canon Law. This is not hostility to the person, but hostility to your dissention and disobedience.

    • Anonymous says:

      jpn I don’t think this lady is very Christian, to begin with. Big difference, between her, and another religious group that is not in communion with Rome, such as the Orthodox churches, or the SSPX— who are all very devoted to Christ. It is interesting, to read all about what the Orthodox believe, and the SSPX, too– although they are not in communion with Rome, which is true! I enjoyed watching the Armenian Orthodox Divine Liturgy, on TV, when the Pope visited them, recently. Their genocide was terrible! This lady sounds like a New Ager, actually, not that interested in Christ. She sounds like a Berkeley-style radical political activist and feminist, deep down, and that’s all.

      • Justin K. says:

        That’s not what “pope jon” is doing, Anonymous: he is playing a cynical game of attacking any who disagree with his obviously deficient “Glories of the Novus-Ordo-World” by trying to trap one into defensively repudiating a phony “disobedient” stance—as tho’we are to blame for dissidents who find a cozy home in his New Church. It’s a classic New Church trick.

        This story is about women’s ordination — it has nothing to do with trad Catholicism BUT evidences everything about Francis-Church and the confusion the Bergoglio papacy has propagated. That is jon’s world and that is why the Catholic Church is collapsing according to every objective survey.

        • THere you reveal O Justin the deep flaw in your thinking. “The Catholic Church is collapsing.” That is the refrain of those who disdain the present Magisterium, who promote your beloved SSPX and their illicit chapels, and who cause scandal in the Church. Perhaps we should pity those who repeat that refrain, for their faith is weak, and their argumentation and words come from fear. And fear is an indicator of a lack of love, for as St. Paul has written, “perfect love casts out all fear.” We should pray for these disobedient people.

          • Drop the deception, “jon”, the utter lack of sincerity in your assertions of “praying” for people is self-evident.

            Your agenda is self-promotion, to smack everyone else who disagrees with you—and there is a Catholic world full of them—into submission. Your assertions are only props in your façade.

          • Anonymous says:

            Yes, jon, “perfect love casts out fear!” But then, if you love God, and are secure in Him, and fearless– you don’t have to worry about whom you perceive to be “disobedient!” You act so frightened and insecure! Why? The Holy Father has made it known, publicly– that he DETESTS legalism, and banishes it from his Papacy! Instead, he prefers Love and Mercy, in his very own style, with his very own kind of Holy Year, too! If you love the Pope so much– why not quote him, and why not copy his brand of theology, too??

          • Anonymous, my calling people for their disobedience doesn’t come from any fear on my part. You’re mistaken. It comes from mercy. It is an act of mercy, and compassion, to inform and correct the ignorant. It’s one of the spiritual acts of mercy. And so I am actually being merciful and charitable to the disobedient people here by calling them out on it. Someday, perhaps, the folks here will actually thank me for taking the trouble to inform them of their error. It may not be in this life; it could very well be in the next. Repent people.

    • St. Christopher says:

      Ms. Truelson is loony tunes. She can call herself the Queen of Sheba or Colonel Sanders, but that does not make it so. She is not and cannot be anything other than a lay woman. And, you know this.

      The SSPX priests are priests, fully ordained. The “licitness” of their sacramental office is the subject of Church politics, not of the power of their ordination. Tomorrow the Pope could grant them full juridical (canonical) status, but they are always functioning priests. The Pope cannot ever ordain Mr. Truelson and her goofball sorority of The Church Of Let’s-Play-Dress-Up.

    • jon, SSPX priests have been validly ordained. The Church doesn’t dispute that. For one thing, SSPX priests are male, which is valid matter for the sacrament, as opposed to the invalid matter of a female. Truelson’s use of the phrase “valid but illicit” is wrong because her attempt at ordination lacked validity due to invalid matter.

      The phrase “valid but illicit” is correctly used to refer to SSPX Masses. The Masses are celebrated by a validly ordained priest, but the priest lacks faculties to celebrate sacraments in his ecclesiastical territory.

      You are comparing two different things and misunderstanding that they are different. The differences make “valid but illicit” incorrect in one usage but correct in the other.

    • Secondly, jon, if it isn’t “in the Tradition” to publicly disagree with the Magisterium, you’d better have a conversation with St. Paul, who publicly told Peter to his face that he was manifestly in the wrong. (See Galatians 2:11-14) Oh, but you would say that Paul committed sin by opposing and correcting Pope Peter instead of meekly obeying him in a matter on which Peter was wrong.

      You’d better have a conversation with St. Catherine of Siena, who implored Pope Gregory to return to Rome, the seat of the papacy, from Avignon. Oh, but you would say that since the Avignon popes had moved the papacy to France for over 60 years, that was a new development in Tradition that wasn’t to be questioned by anyone; people should simply have…

      • You prove my point Sawyer, concerning the cowardice of folks here. At least Truelson, like St. Catherine and other reformers like her (and even your beloved SSPX) are willing to PUT THEIR NAME AND FACE to their stance against “power.” At least Truelson wasn’t cowardly by hiding behind her anonymity. THe folks here practice the hit-and-run approach: attacking the shepherds of the Church and then bolting out. Or returning because they are hiding behind their “name.”

        Truelson is disobedient like many of you folks, but one plus for her is that he at least didn’t hide her name and her face.

        • hosemonkey says:

          You accuse unjustly. You castgate those on here who “hide” behind pseudonyms in posting here. I have no qualms about using my real name anywhere, but some desire to protect their privacy. Is it “un-Catholic” to call the Magesterium on their errors and misdeeds? The Church would not be in the state that is now in if the “Good Catholics” had cried out against the disaster and wreckage caused by Vatican II. The “Good Catholics” need to cry out against the Loose Cannon Pope that we are stuck with now. The “Good Catholics” sat on their butts and swallowed it.

          • In Canon Law, hosemonkey, there is a mechanism in place for the laity to voice their concerns to the Magisterium. This here blog ain’t one of them. Simply put, those folks wouldn’t have the time to read your words here! You’re better off writing a letter, putting your name onto it, signing it, printing it in nice stationery. THAT is the prescribed and responsible way. Doing it here is not only counter-productive but also scandalous and aimed at fostering division in the Church and fostering contempt for the Magisterium. It is sin.

          • Justin K says:

            Right, “hosemonkey”, jon wants to suppress free thought and speech, and claim there are no political rights, such as free speech and the free exchange of ideas, in the Catholic Church. Write a letter, “hosemonkey”, that will be scanned and filed and forgotten—just as they have been for the last 50 years.

            And by the way there is no prohibition in Canon Law against, blogs, expression of ideas, nor criticism of church officials—except in Comrade “jon’s” Worker’s Paradise. As usual, jon makes things up, and when caught, changes the premises.

          • Again Justin K. you are wrong. What’s your error this time? Your notion of someone depriving you of your political “right.” THAT is a red herring. No one here has trampled on your “political rights.” However let me inform you of something you really should know: There is no right in the Church to dissent from the Magisterium. NONE!

          • Additionally Justin K, since you doubt that there is no prohibition in Canon Law on the kind of vehement castigation against the Magisterium perpetrated by folks here, read Canon 1373: “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”

            YOu have no right to be inciting other Catholics to scandal and disobedience on a blog or other social media. NONE!

          • Justin K says:

            What Canon 1373 says does not at all comply with your broad and false accusation; Furher, your tendentious and malicious application of it, of course, against your perceived enemies, is incompetent.

            If you knew a whit about canon law, canons are to be applied “strictly”, meaning within tightly defined parameters, only strictly meeting defined criteria, not your twisted “plain-language reading”, distorted by your brimming hostility. Fortunately, you are utterly incompetent to judge the canons or anyone for that matter. Rather, it displays deeply hostile motivation and that you have become the very bitterly divisive type you claim is ruining the”purity” of your pontiff-“jon” imaginary-church.

          • Wrong again Justin K. Canon 1371 applies perfectly to what folks like you are doing here. You are erroneously applying Canon 18 to Canon 1371, and guess what: it ain’t gonna work because you have no “right” to dissent, you have no “right” to trash the Magisterium, you have no “right” to impugn their judgments on matters of faith and morals (read it yourself!). 1373 is a penal law, and penal laws should be interpreted strictly in order to protect the rights of subjects. But guess what? There is no right to dissent from the Magisterium in the Roman Catholic Church!

            Be under no illusion, O Justin K., your activities here are not unnoticed by the Judge of All Things. You will have to give an accounting someday for your…

          • ….words here (Matthew 12:36): “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.”

          • Wrong again Justin K. Canon 1373 applies perfectly to what folks like you are doing here. You are erroneously applying Canon 18 to Canon 1373, and guess what: it ain’t gonna work because you have no “right” to dissent, you have no “right” to trash the Magisterium, you have no “right” to impugn their judgments on matters of faith and morals (read it yourself!). 1373 is a penal law, and penal laws should be interpreted strictly in order to protect the rights of subjects. But guess what? There is no right to dissent from the Magisterium in the Roman Catholic Church!

            Be under no illusion, O Justin K., your activities here are not unnoticed by the Judge of All Things. You will have to give an accounting someday for your…

          • ….words here (Matthew 12:36): “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.”

        • No, jon, I refuted your point, which you conveniently disregard in pursuit of another red herring.

          I have never expressed devotion to the SSPX. I have never attended an SSPX Mass. But your remark was incorrect, and I explained that. I wasn’t supporting the SSPX; I was explaining your error. SSPX priests validly celebrate Mass. Period. That was my point.

          • Sawyer, your commenting on my point on “valid and illicit” is pedantic. How so? You missed the facetiousness of my comment concerning “valid and illicit”. But no matter. By commenting on it, you have affirmed a point of mine that your beloved SSPX is in disobedience! Just as this Truelson person is in disobedience. Just as many commentators here are in disobedience.

          • So, jon, when you’re proven wrong you claim that your original statement was misinterpreted because it was intended to be facetious. Got it.

            Have you applied for the position of Supreme Almighty Being? You would be rejected, but your arrogance and self-importance might lead to you believe yourself qualified.

            For the last time, I am not devoted to the SSPX and have never attended an SSPX Mass. For one thing, there are plenty of valid and licit Catholic Masses offered where I live.

            Trying to get through to you is like trying to get a record to play a different song.

        • Secondly, you say you have no qualms about using your “real” name here. Good. You certainly had no qualms using a name like “hosemonkey” whatever that name is. Hard to take the comments of one who uses that name seriously.

          • Justin K says:

            Well, apparently you took them seriously. Insecurity, we suppose. Must have the last word on everything in jon’s pious pontificate.

          • Justin K says:

            By the way, the “anonymity” argument of pious “jon” is an interesting turn: “jon” can publish under his full first and last name, as Ann Malley does or Michael McDermott. But most New Churchers never lead by example.

          • Justin K., you had accused me of “self-promotion.” Well, if I were guilty of that, I would be publishing under my COMPLETE NAME, including my last name. Why would that be self-promotion? Because I know I am in the right, that I am obedient to the Magisterium and my bishop, I revere my priests, and I defend the Holy Father. I can easily be reported by sympathetic folks to my pastor and then to my bishop, and who knows, get an ecclesiastical award of some sort.

            However, because my words here are not about self-promotion, but rather for God’s greater glory and in defense of the Church, I must be humble and publish without my last name lest I be praised for my obedience and my strong defense of the Church. You see O Justin, you…

          • are wrong again.

          • Justin K says:

            Endless “I” (8x’s), “my” (6x’s), “me” (only 1x, will have to improve that) in just one pathetic 750-character response—you are completely self-enamored and can’t stop self-promoting how great thou art—even fantasizing a delusional idea you will get some parish award? Tone-deaf to yourself.

            Please, just post under Barack Obama henceforth.

          • St. Christopher says:

            “jon” your comments on not using the internet — i.e., blogging — to give effect to the voice of the laity is completely irrational. First, where is there a “pen and paper” requirement in Canon 212 §3? Second, many leading Catholic clerics, like Bishop Athanasius Schneider have spoken of the great tool that the internet represents to Catholic laity.

            Of course, you and other Zombie-Liberals dislike it because you cannot silence it. Truth will out.

          • Christopher: You are citing a Canon (212) which condemns the very action dissenters here are committing.

            First, “faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.” By writing here on this blog exclusively and the manner in which many have been (with disrespect towards the clergy) you are not making known to pastors your desires.

            Second, you are to make known your desires “with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” Judging from the vitriol vomited here many times against bishops and priests, folks here and possibly you too, are in violation of this canon.

            Thirdly, “the Christian faithful are…

          • ” are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare…” Many of you have violated this one.

            So you don’t need an actual pen and paper to violate this canon.

      • ANother thing Sawyer: if you are going to castigate Truelson, you should also castigate your beloved SSPX (and indeed their supporters here), with the same vehemence and vigor, for their disobedience are of the same spirit, same transgression, same sin. Yes, their respective vantage point may be at variance, but it’s the same sin. Truelson and some of the folks here including your beloved SSPX disobey. The person who is grieved most by this of course is Christ, represented by the Magisterium. But be under no illusion: it is the same sin. Repent people, repent.

        • hosemonkey says:

          See above, Jon.

        • jon, the SSPX is not in formal schism; their status is irregular and complicated.

          Truelson’s indisputable sins are heresy, simulating a sacrament, and schism. She is now excommunicated.

          At worst, the SSPX have some unsettled questions about the proper interpretation of some Vatican II documents such as the declaration on religious liberty. The questions concern whether the document is interpreted in continuity or rupture with Church Tradition. That is not obviously sinful, and if sinful not as seriously sinful as Truelson’s acts.

          You think they are the same? Simpleton.

          • Sawyer: to a conscience that deludes itself as being “sophisticated” and “learned,” Truelson’s disobedience can’t be of the same degree as your beloved SSPX. “Hers is much grave, surely,” those “sophisticates” would say. That may be so (and I have referred to that in my first comment, ie “varying degree”). HOWEVER, among those endowed with a purer, more pristine, and indeed simpler conscience akin to the hosts of heaven, THE TWO EVENTS HAVE OFFENDED GOD, for both are the sin of disobedience! The most minor angel in the lowest angelic rank, as simple as his faith may be, weeps at the offense of a Truelson and the disobedience of a Lefebvre.

          • The Rose says:

            Great comment Jon: You showed them their hypocrisy. They condemn the very thing that they themselves are guilty of. Brilliant point. A sin is a sin. If they are without the sin of disobedience, they would have been worthy to condemn Joanna Truelson, but they’re not. As Our Savior Himself has said: “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

          • Ah, look it’s “The Rose”—how mysteriously Rose appears to try to cross-validate “jon”. Of course they aren’t the same person.

          • Thank you Rose. Good to know there is one more obedient person who reads these pages.

          • Justin K. says:

            But isn’t “Rose” a hated anonymous poster? Jon must hate her as much as the SSPX. Very perplexing.

          • Again Justin K., you are wrong. What’s your error this time? We who are right on this or any issue have a claim to anonymity, for self-effacement and diffidence are the virtues of those who are correct. Read my post earlier on the only valid reason here for anonymity. And you in particular should note that post of mine for you had wrongly accused us of “self-promotion.”

          • Justin K says:

            Yes, sociopathic behavior claims special rights for oneself. Others have no rights, as you repeatedly espoused.

            And creating a fictitious counter-entity to praise your self-promoting image (“The Rose”) is an example of delusional behavior: you are the first victim of your misleading self-deception as you struggle to maintain this prevarication.

            No one is fooled. It’s just pontiff-jon, self-praising jon, self-contradicting jon, and yes, bitterly hostile jon.

          • O Justin K., you are mistaken. Perhaps you are just astonished that there should be more than one person, other than myself, who actually reads this here blog, and yet have remained obedient to the Magisterium. ANd that is pathetic if it were true. Pathetic because you have become accustomed to dissent against the Magisterium in your home, at work, at play that you can’t fathom that there should be at least TWO people who actually believe what the CHurch teaches! Pathetic. We’ll pray for you.

          • The Rose says:

            Justin dear I have been posting comments here on-and-off for the past five years. If you doubt my existence I really can’t help you.

          • Linda Maria says:

            jon, Sawyer’s post here is 100% correct! He is stating the truth, about the SSPX– and about the silly “priestess,” in the above article. Very well-written, and 100% accurate! By the way– your “beloved Pope” HATES Canon Law, and banishes from his sight, all those who quote it, believe in it, and follow it!

          • Linda Maria says:

            My post above, on July 4th, at 11:48 a.m., is a reply to jon, regarding the excellent, clearly-written post of Sawyer, on June 30th at 12:28p.m.

        • Anonymous says:

          jon, the SSPX is only “disobedient” on one thing– non-acceptance of Vatican II, because they feel that Vatican II contradicts the True Faith. You might want to read up on their Society, and see what their reasons are, point-by-point. Very interesting, even if you disagree! But they uphold the true Catholic Faith, Magisterium, Tradition, and Catechism, better than most Catholic priests and bishops of our Church! And their priests are formed exactly as they used to be formed, before the Council– no different! The Orthodox, and SSPX, are very serious about Christ– but this goofed-up lady is just a silly feminist political activist!

          • Anonymous, the authentic teachers of the Catholic Faith are those who belong to the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops united to him). It’s not just one bishop, but ALL of them united with the Pope: that’s the Magisterium. The Magisterium is not the SSPX, not the laity here, not even me, and certainly not you. You would have us believe that ONE LONE archbishop, alone, was endowed by the Holy Spirit. And the rest of the bishops including the Holy Father were wrong. If you believe that, then you have negated the words of Christ in the Gospel: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Plus, you negate the dogma of the Church that the HOly Spirit preserves the Church from error on matters of faith and morals. It is you…

          • who needs to read up, Anonymous.

          • Anonymous says:

            I don’t think poor “jon the legalist” gets it! This Pope actually HATES Church Law! As a matter of fact, he seeks to PUBLICLY GET RID OF CANON LAW, and ALL WHO ARE SPECIALISTS IN IT, such as CARDINAL BURKE— and even dares to say that maybe most Catholics married in the Church, do not have valid marriages, compared to Catholics who “shack up,” or have “gay marriages,”– who are “deeply committed,” to their lovers! Oh, Pope Francis– so “EVER FAITHFUL” in matters of Faith and Morals! jon is CRAZY!!

          • Well then prove it. Prove your claim that this Pope hates Church law. Quote the text and give us the date and occasion for his words. His words at an airplane press conference does not count as they are not Magisterial. Quote only the authentic teaching. OK? Ok. I expect your next comment to be exact quotes from the Holy Father proving your claim. And while we wait, it is you who is the crazy one. I hope that is very clear to you. Do your homework.

          • Linda Maria says:

            jon– the Pope just said, once again, the other day, to the consternation of both Catholic and secular journalists, who are very confused as to his constant contradictions of Church teaching and Church Law that HE DOES NOT LIKE CHURCH LAW, AND CASTS IT ASIDE, FOR HIS OWN AGENDAS, AND THAT IS THAT!! The Pope is “top dog,” and he will do as he pleases, casting aside the Catechism and Canon Law! That is the way the Pope is, jon! My goodness– can’t you see, for yourself– Pope Francis is NOT your “DREAM POPE!!”

        • Justin K. says:

          Don’t speak as though for Christ, “jon”: your unwarranted hostility shows you have no idea who He is.

          • O Justin you’re mistaken. To say that Christ is offended by sin doesn’t necessarily mean one is speaking for Him. Indeed, Scripture reveals that sin offends God: check out Ps. 51:4. Additionally, my hostility is aimed towards disobedience. If you feel hostility, then you probably are disobedient.

          • Justin K says:

            ‘jon’, your denials of your attempt to paint trad Catholics as being as “disobedient” and heretical as the WomenChurch people evidences incredible duplicity and hostility. Your denials and attempted self-justifications only highlite your insincerity of “praying for people” as though you somehow “know Christ” better than they. And quoting Scripture as a cloak to your self-promoting attacks is a shame: the devil can quote Scripture quite well too.

          • Justin K. I KNOW that I know Christ better because I follow the Magisterium. If I follow the Pope and his bishops, I know I am closer to Christ, compared to those who shun the Magisterium.

          • Justin K says:

            Yes, jon the pious is a wonder—of self -promotion—mentioning “I” (his favorite word ) 6x’s in about 30 words, while pontificating how great he is with Jesus Christ. Jon is bishop-material now. The fancy houses, the dinners-of-honor, the ring-kissing.

            At least Jesus hit a coupla mentions. Let’s give a shout-out “Honorable mention” to Jesus Christ, who gave us His greatest gift, jon the pious.

        • Hear ye, hear ye! Lord jon of the Humble Pie proclaims that those who dare disagree or question his certain and unerring Theological understanding shall be deemed cowards, and that such blasphemers must repent in order to receive favor and blessings.

      • But Sawyer, even your beloved SSPX is at least one degree better than some of the vociferous complainers here. Why? The SSPX at least do not hide behind their anonymity. Their disobedience is PUBLIC! That’s guts! They’re willing to take responsibility for their error. So is Truelson. Now compare that to the folks on here who do a hit-and-run commentary critical of the Magisterium? Cowardly. I daresay they should take pointers from Truelson and even from your beloved SSPX on how to be disobedient! Put your name out there!

        • Justin K. says:

          Getting more and more shrill, O pious one.

          Here are some extra exclamation points to help out: !!!!!!!!!

        • Linda Maria says:

          Jon– I would rather thank an SSPX priest for a little spiritual help (even for a now-valid –by Pope Francis!– Confession, if I ever went!) and drop him a donation, for his good church, too– than donate to the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for faithless, immoral “Catholic Missionaries” to provide birth control and abortion, in Third World countries– as well as promote gay “marriage” and adoptions! As a matter of fact– I have donated to the SSPX, a number of times, for their good work, and prayerfully joined them, in seeking communion s with Rome! Simply stated– the SSPX is the Church I grew up in, period!!

          • Linda Maria says:

            Jon– the SSPXs’ Church is not strange– it is simply the one we all grew up in, with the Baltimore Catechism, prior to the Council! My grandfather, who was beautifully educated in Jesuit schools, in his native Italy, at the turn of the 20th century– used to talk about how the Jesuits would daily converse in Latin, and encourage the boys to join in, too– because Church Latin was the language of our Church, and it was good to be as fluent as possible, in it– reading, writing, and conversing!

          • Ahem. LM, the SSPX does not have a Church. It is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And currently your beloved SSPX has no legal standing in this same Church. Their services are illicit–ALL OF THEM, except the sacrament of reconciliation during this Year of Mercy. You have Francis to thank for that.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Oh, jon, that bee is buzzing in your bonnet something fierce.

            The Church supplies in times of crisis and, if you didn’t perceive the reality before, Francis has made the situation in the Church very clear. And, yes, we can and should thank him for that. Having problems outlined and underlined is a godsend, even if it makes folks squirmy. Even you.

            The Truth is our Beloved, jon. And while you may fear being cast out of the temple, others will choose Christ. Others must choose Christ because they’ve been given the wherewithal to see.

          • Ann Malley, again you are wrong. Following Christ does NOT mean necessarily following your beloved SSPX. Why not? Christ was obedient to the Father in ALL THINGS. He never wavered in his obedience. If I want to follow Him and choose Him, I would not choose to go along with a society (SSPX) that is manifestly disobedient. OK? Ok.

          • Linda Maria says:

            jon– don’t you see, that the Holy Father, as well as Pope (emeritis) Benedict– have a great deal of RESPECT and CHARITY, as well as GOOD MANNERS, towards the SSPX?? Well, if Pope Francis is your “DREAM POPE,” then, why do you not IMITATE his good example? Both Popes would send you out of the Vatican, crying, for your horrible bad manners, and misguided ideas, on the SSPX!

          • Linda Maria, you obviously haven’t been reading my posts carefully here about the SSPX. Read it carefully. I called them the way the are seen by the Church: namely, their services are illicit/illegal. Why? Because they don’t adhere to the the documents of Vatican II. Now, what’s bad manners about that? I am calling them as the Church sees them, honestly. And to deal honestly with someone is an act of charity.

            Secondly, I even praise the SSPX here for being upfront, public, and unabashed about their disobedience, unlike some folks who hide behind anonymity while they castigate the Magisterium. At least the SSPX are willing to take responsibility for their disobedience! That’s one point for them.

          • Moreover LM, you think the SSPX are genteel and polite to Catholics who go to Novus Ordo Masses? Do you think they speak highly of the New Mass and those who love them? Of course not. Why don’t you read your own comments about Vatican II and the Ordinary Form. Your words lack manners, lack charity, lack delicacy. My words about the folks here and the SSPX (“disobedient”) are totally within bounds. Yours however are not!

  3. Linda Maria says:

    All these crazy “goofballs” want, is power, egotism, political activism, and feminism! NOT the loving, humble service to Christ and His Blessed Mother, of a true Catholic! This woman is also not eligible to receive any Catholic Sacraments anyway– she is twice divorced! If these people only knew what they were missing– they would abandon their egotistical self-worship, political activism, feminism, and power-seeking, for the more boring, “hidden” life, of prayer, self-sacrifice, and loving, humble service to Our Lord, like any other good, honest Catholic layman! As St. Paul said,”It is not I who live, but Christ Who lives, in me!” We are to be “little Christs,” hidden, loving, and humble!

  4. Waste of an article folks.

  5. Forget about this wacky goof-ball, what I found even more appalling was: “According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which collects statistics on Catholicism in the United States, in 2015 there were 37,578 Catholic priests in the U.S. for a total Catholic population of 68.1 million. There were 3,533 parishes that had no resident pastor and the number of active diocesan priests per parish has been steadily declining from two in 1965 to one in 2015.” These are the fruits of Vatican 2. Does it sound like it is following Our Lord’s direction to go out and convert all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

  6. Father Karl says:

    There is no such thing as a Catholic woman priest. A priest is a male who offers sacrifice, and only validly ordained men can offer a sacramental sacrifice according to the New Law. The article’s heading is misleading, to say the least.

    • FromThePew says:

      Yes Fr. Karl, Thanks be to God the Catholic Church is very clear on this point….
      NO PRIESTESS! And thanks be to God for all our good priests.

  7. ‘Roman Catholic Womenpriests claims that the ordinations they perform are “valid but illicit,” And so then would be my claim that the child that I imagined that I just gave birth to this morning from the womb I don’t have. Silly, silly girl.

  8. A Course in Miracles is a New Age, East-West mixture of ideas that are toxic and irrevocably alien to Christianity. There is no place for the incarnation, life, atoning death,and resurrection of Jesus– and future Judgment. All is reinterpreted in a zeitgeist more akin to Hindu thought than Christian. It is no wonder that Truelson found the Episcopalians too restrictive. And it is a very tempting allure as an alternative to historic Christianity at a time when consciousness of sin is at an all-time low, and “only love matters.”

    • The Course in Miracles denies that there is any such thing as sin.

    • FromThePew says:

      Didn’t Hollyweirdwood try that in a movie long time ago….Love means you never have to say you are sorry? The more mature folks (ahem….older) might remember.

  9. She is not validly ordained. Everything about her “Ordination” is illicit. Women are not called to be ordained because God our creator decided that Woman will becalled to something else. Women have a very important job. She could have be a cloistered nun. Cloistered nuns have a job for instance of praying for priests. With their prayers give the priest strength to do the job that God has given to them. Prayer life for women is very important. No spotlite, no glory. But very important. Women are equal in dignity. God for a reason made men and women different. But when working together, they complement each each other to complete the will of God.

  10. Dan has a good point: the catalyst in Truelson’s bizarre journey was that well-known Bay Area heretic par excellence, Matthew Fox, who a decade or so ago after his split with the Dominicans was cavorting with “good witch”, “Star Hawk” (real name, Miriam Simos) at Holy Names College in the Oakland hills (another once-proud Catholic institution now Vatican-2-ized into powder). His “Institute of Creation Spirituality” has fried many Bay Area kinda-Catholic brains, and he is a big women’s ord. type. I think Bob One got a graduate degree from him actually. Truelson came into the orbit of these two very clever, very bizarre charlatans and the rest is history.

  11. Justin K says:

    Here are some facts of the collapsing US Catholic Church, for those who wish:

    Pew Survey Data in 2007 estimated there were 54 million US Catholics: in 2014 the same estimate resulted in 51 million US Catholics, a drop of at least 3 million, this despite the huge immigration influx from Latin America during the same time. (The official US Bishops total of Catholic adults and children in the US in 2007 was 68 million, but by 2014 they acknowledge, again despite immigration “replacement” numbers, only 64 million Catholics, a drop of at least 4 million members.

    Pew Survey, April, 2009: Those who have left the Catholic Church outnumber those who have joined it 4-to-1. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3/

    • Justin K says:

      Anyone who wants to be shocked, with all the numbers and the collapse that is evident in jon the pious’ New Church, CARA-Georgetown lays them out, from 1965 to 2015—in one handy, easy-to-read, graph.


      We are to know a tree by its fruits. In 1965, prior to the Council’s end, the Church was strong and growing. After 50 years harvesting its fruits, In 2015, it is a mess.

      But the SSPX, the FSSP, the CMRI’s, the Institute of Christ the King are to blame. Yes’m.

      • Bob One says:

        Justin, you are correct when you point out the severe decline in the number of Priests in the U.S. You are also correct that the decline started about 40-50 years ago. But, I find it hard to put all the blame, as some do, on VII. The Council occurred because of the change that was going on in not only the Catholic Church, but in all main-line Protestant churches as well. Their numbers are down too. For those who didn’t live through the 60-70s its hard to comprehend what a sea change it was for our nation and the world. The world went into a tail spin and we now see some of the results.

        • Bob One, I concur. To the one-note wonders such as a Justin K., it’s all about the deficiencies of the Magisterium. The popes and the bishops and the priests are all to blame. WRONG! I put as much blame on the supposed “decline” in numbers on the disobedient folks who call themselves “Catholics”. People hear their complaining, their disrespect of bishops and priests, their belittling of the sacraments of the Church, and THEY ARE SCANDALIZED. These folks, perhaps many of them sympathetic to the SSPX dissenters, are as much responsible for the decline of the Church because of their dissent and scandalous words. They should repent. And we should pray for their conversion.

          • Justin K says:

            Those evidencing sociopathic behavior —besides the name-calling (“trolls”,”cowards”), the judging, the overt hostility, and eager desire for the punishment of others, always need a scapegoat to hide their own failure and to divert blame. (Maybe we should capitalize BLAME for jon.)

          • Justin K says:

            Another example of sociopathic behavior is to claim to “pray for people”—- after explicitly evidencing obvious hostility and utter insincerity to care about them at all, in fact expressing open desire to be rid of them.

            Utter insincerity.

          • You are forgetting another adjective I use which is “dissenters.” That I think is a most-apt word to use in their relation, for you folks dissent from the clear teachings of the Magisterium, and then castigate those who do the same, such as Truelson. Total hypocrisy. That is another apt-descriptive by the way: hypocrites. Don’t forget that gem.

          • St. Christopher says:

            What are you apostates conspiring about? Statistically speaking, the Church has cratered since Vatican II and its Satan-lead implementation. The Church’s failure in holding to the Gospel, and in embracing leadership by homosexuals, has pretty much done it in as the institution it was meant to be by Jesus. Fewer people go to Church now, anyway, or contribute to it. Why look to moral cowards, like Cardinals Wuerl, Mahony, and Dolan, Abp. Cupich, and B. lynch, among so many others, for leadership? They should have been expelled long ago. A vocal laity might well save more souls than the present American Church.

          • SChristopher: naming of clerics’ names and castigating them irresponsibly can very well be one of the factors that has contributed to the decline in numbers. A vocal laity that trashes the shepherds does not save souls. It scandalizes them, and causes those weak in faith to drift away. Young people listening/reading to your words can very well be scandalized. And what does Our Lord say about such people who cause scandal–better that a millstone be tied around their neck and cast into the sea.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        The American Church is only about 5 %of the entire Church. Silly to say the Church is crumbling by looking through one tiny peephole.

        Besides which, correlation is not causation. It could just as easily be that Vatican II didn’t go far enough in making reforms, and that is why American Catholics are abandoning her. Personally, I’ve only met one person who left because it abandoned the Latin Mass (he recanted when he was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer), but I have known hundreds who cannot abide its lack of roles for women, its stance on family matters, its overall hypocracy, especially around the child sex abuse scandal.

        • Ann Malley says:

          The overall hypocrisy is the push for the those within the Church to pretend that they uphold and believe the truth of the Catholic faith while neglecting to teach what the Faith requires.

          You may as well go back to the time of Christ and lambaste Him for teaching against divorce, YFC.

          Personally, I find this farce an utter waste of time and breath. Either you believe or you don’t. And if you count grace so cheaply as to promote the requisite embracing or downplaying of the reality of sin, well, you may as well play for the other side. Out in the open, that is.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            “Either you believe or you don’t” The farce is that you claim to believe, yet you willingly left the Church.

          • Ann Malley says:

            I willingly left the occasion of sin as we all must, YFC. You, however, seem inclined to keep fixed on a building and a name while perverting doctrine and obfuscating the spirit and the letter.

            If you stuck to the letter or spirit, you wouldn’t pretend that those who are not outside the Church are outside the Church.

            But as always, you never fail to deliver the grand illustration that is modern magic. Thank you! Thank you for standing as an example for all to see so increasing numbers can learn what doublespeak is.

            Happy 4th!!!

        • Jon, the Bishop of San Jose promotes homosexuality, has publicly stated the “the four gospels…are not historical accounts of the historical events” attended installation of “bishop” Mary Gray Reeves as Episcopalian leader of San Jose and continues, like other “Catholic” leaders to scandalize the One True Church. Until this nonsense ends I will attend my beloved SSPX.

          • Linda Maria says:

            Ron, I agree! Bishop McGrath is NOT a faithful Catholic Bishop, in regards to Faith and Morals, of the Church! He promotes homosexuality, feminism, and other bad things, too! I admire the SSPX, for their humble FAITHFULNESS to the Church’s true teachings, on Faith and Morals! I have enjoyed talking to SSPX priests, at St. Thomas More Church (in San Jose), at St. Aloysius Retreat Center (in Los Gatos), and at the chapel where they sometimes say Mass, on Homestead Road (in Santa Clara). I am not an SSPX member– but ADMIRE them!

          • Right. Well, you do that. Just be reminded that their “Masses” are illicit, that going there is an act of disobedience, that it is a sin. To compound a sin with a sin of one’s own is foolish. You will have to give an account on the day of judgment for your actions, not for the actions of other people.

          • Additionally, you have just violated Canon 1373.

          • Ann Malley says:

            jon, once again you overstep yourself and reality. Attendance at a mass offered by the SSPX is not a sin. You will have to give an account of your obfuscation and over reach on the day of your judgement.

            That’s why when preaching to others what is the Magisterium, you should try sticking to it yourself and to that which is binding. You don’t.

          • Ann Malley the services offered by SSPX are illicit, meaning they are illegal, meaning they are unlawful. What is sin but the breaking of the law of God, as articulated by the Church. The Church has articulated that these services are illicit, especially if a Catholic has other places to go in the vicinity for Mass. Going to them is disobedience plain and simple.

          • Linda Maria says:

            jon, the Holy Father would scold you, and tell you to throw your “Canon 1373” (above) out the window, immediately– and practice his theology of Love and Mercy, for his Holy Year!

        • Linda Maria says:

          YFC– you forget, that the so-called “Catholics” of today’s American Church, have little or no religious and moral training- and have no interest in it, either! They go to Mass for social reasons. They expect the Church to be just as secular society, and that’s all they know. They are ignorant of God, and the things of God. Pope St. John Paul II wrote of the “silent apostasy” in the Church. Very sad!

    • FromThePew says:

      Justin K, To your point RE: Shrinking Church Numbers
      I found this sad news on http://www.lastampa dated 6/29/16, “Traditionalist St. Pius X society abandons unification, claims Francis spreading errors” The title says it all but the article explains their perceptions of how high & how deep the Church divide really is becoming. God is not blessing us with unity right now. Books can be written on WHY that is. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell………

  12. FromThePew says:

    This article is a HIT PIECE as many articles are from the lame stream media. Any port in a storm to attack the good ship Catholic. This article to me, confirms the bizarre thinking of this woman in ‘heresy’. Looks like satan, the all to clever lier, has her eating another ‘apple’ like Eve. God help her immortal soul if she takes other poorly catechized or confused souls with her into ruin. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins……

  13. Bob One says:

    I know that we are not supposed to even talk about the subject, under the threat of hell, but I still haven’t heard a really good reason why women can’t be Priests, or for that matter why married men can’t be priests. Even the Bible says that a Bishop should raise his family well. (Timothy 3, 1-6). Deacons are also mentioned in Timothy. So, what is the argument for no women priest or married priest other than we told you so or we have always done it this way. I have a hard time explaining it to women who have been ordained in another denomination or a married minister. Could use some help here!

    • The prohibition of married priests is a discipline, not a doctrinal prohibition; it can change. There have been married priests in the past, and there are some married priests in the Roman Rite by way of exception today.

      The prohibition of female priests is infallible dogma; it can never change. For one thing, Jesus only selected males as his Apostles. That is taken as indicative of Christ’s will that the priesthood be exclusively male. Additionally, the priest stands in persona Christi at Mass, which is the celebration of the marriage of heaven and earth. Every marriage must have a male and female: priest is male, Church is female collectively. A female priestess would result in a lesbian “marriage”.

      • Anne T. says:

        Exactly, Sawyer, and Archbishop Cordileone and many other very orthodox bishops have said the very same things. Bishop Rene Gracida, I am sure, has taught the very same things. These are excellent bishops that the dissenters coming on here do not like, and I am not SSPX and have never gone to one of their Masses, so they cannot blame me for that.

    • Justin K. says:

      Cf. “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, 1994, P. John Paul II.

    • Linda Maria says:

      Continued… Tragically, we no longer see the beautiful flowering of true Womanhood, in all her NATURAL beauty, goodness, femininity, creativity, nurturing and healing gifts, virtues, and wisdom, so close to God! Nor do we see the full, beautiful, NATURAL flowering of MANHOOD, either, as God created it– strength, virility, leadership, courage, protectiveness, care for others in the community against dangers, fighting all evils. Modern “manhood” and “womanhood” are hijacked, and turned into UNNATURAL, sickening “politically-correct” contrivances!

  14. Justin K. says:

    And I guess “Angelo” was right, about your getting an advanced degree with Matthew Fox and Star Hawk at Holy Flames College Institute of Creation Spirituality.

  15. Some question the doctrine of complementarity, where God has different ‘plans’ for each of the genders. Women earn a significant portion of the MA/PHD in Theology and related topics from Catholic Universities. Many do not discern a life of cloistered prayer. Even the USMC –kicking and screaming — is ending gender discrimination.
    Traditions are like poker hands. Maybe its time to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

    • Metaphysical and natural truths are not changeable traditions.

      Some types of discrimination are good and necessary. Our age believes any type of discrimination is an intrinsic evil; that is incorrect.

      When differences make a substantial difference, then discrimination is good and necessary. When differences are irrelevant, then discrimination is evil.

      Proper discrimination is a sign of wisdom. Indiscriminateness is foolishness.

      Women’s intellects have the same potential as men’s: they can study the theological sciences.

      Women are not men: they cannot stand in the place of Christ in sacerdotal ministry. They also cannot marry another woman. The two prohibitions are related because the Church is the bride of Christ.


      • Bob One says:

        Sawyer, let’s keep in mind that 99.99% of the Church rules were written by men, who I suspect, wanted to ensure that they had the power and kept it. Many of those rules were initiated back when women were second class citizens, chattel if you will. Even in our country women were not able to vote until recently because the men didn’t want them to and slaves only counted for a fraction of a white man in our Constitution. None of the rules against women are made by God (who by the way is a spirit, without gender in the Catholic tradition).) Everything you have stated is changeable with no change in beliefs. I/’m still waiting for a reasonable explanation.

        • Tell that to Christ, who only chose men as Apostles even though he had no qualms about violating social and cultural taboos. He chose not to invite women into the apostolic ministry even though he could have. He deliberately excluded women from that role even though he included them and welcomed them in others, contrary to social norms.

          The male priesthood is not a “rule against women”. It’s a sacramental consequence of the union between the male Christ and his bride, the Church: a visible sign of an invisible reality. The two become one flesh, one body. Women cannot be priests because a female is incapable of acting “in persona Christi” in relation to the bride of Christ.; only a man can sacramentally express Christ (male) giving…

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            We’ve lost a lot of women, and not a few number of men. from both the ordained ministry and the pews, because of this kind of thinking.

          • Your Fellow Catholic, Christ lost some followers at the end of John 6 when he told the truth about the Eucharist being his real flesh and blood. Christ didn’t change the truth of doctrine for the sake of popularity.

            People who leave the Church and depart from Christ because they can’t accept the truth of a doctrine show that they worship themselves. They want to be God; they do not want to serve God as he is. They do not want to serve Christ within the Church he founded. They want a Church of their own creation.

            Ultimately, such people want to be affirmed in their sin rather than repent, so of course they leave the true Church, which calls them to repentance.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            If Jesus lost people because of his way of thinking, I wouldn’t assume that every way of thinking that leads to lost people is the same as Jesus way of thinking. You think a little too highly of yourself.

          • YFC, you implied that any way of thinking that turns people away is wrong: “we’ve lost a lot… because of that way of thinking.”

            I pointed out that Jesus’ way of thinking resulted in losing people, so just because you lose people doesn’t mean your way of thinking is wrong.

            Then you dishonestly turn the tables on me to accuse me of assuming that every way of thinking that leads to losing people is the same as Jesus’ way of thinking, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. All I was doing was demonstrating that your reasoning was fallacious; a form of the appeal to popularity.

            Since the Church’s doctrine is an expression of the will of Christ, the dogma of the male priesthood is an expression of Christ’s way of…

          • Linda Maria says:

            In Christ’s era, a woman would never leave her home, alone, unprotected, and go out into the wild, dangerous world, to live with Christ and His Apostles, and do their kind of work! Also, men in previous eras, often carried swords, knives, or other weapons (guns, in more recent eras, up until the 20th century)– and faced many dangers! Plus, women and men never mixed too familiarly, due to the dangers of sex attraction, which Christ and His Apostles would, of course, be very careful with! On His Cross, Christ gave His Mother into the protection of His beloved disciple, St. John.

        • Anne T. says:

          Bob One, that is mostly untrue. Abbesses and wealthy women in the past had power and helped others. Many of the middle class and wealthier women started convents, ran orphanages and businesses, and helped women with children. St. Therese’s Mother ran a lace making business and her father a clock shop, yet many men come on here and make fun of the type of lace that she made for priestly garments. Some men need to look into the mirror before accusing other men of abuse.

        • Anne T. says:

          And Bob One, if you do not like lace on priestly garments, try listening to Deacon Raymond Moon above on Facebook. I am sure he will set you straight, and I am also sure there is no lace on the priestly garments his priest uses.

      • Linda Maria says:

        It is so tragic, to see the UNNATURAL feminization of men, and the UNNATURAL masculinization of women, in today’s world! So SICK!! Such terms as “Man” and “Woman” are NOT mere intellectual terms, nor social roles in society, to be intellectually tossed around on babyish, “hippie-liberal” college campuses, by SICK social activists, in SICK “academia,” seeking to invent a false, SICK society! It is also tragic, to see college kids today, seeking weird, abnormal, SICK sex “hook-ups,” instead of natural dating and courtship, for a love mate, for a lifelong, happy Traditional Marriage and Family!

  16. FromThePew says:

    Long shot here…..but some blame it on the Adam & Eve story. Eve was the DOWNFALL of mankind & took Adam with her. God was NOT pleased & now all are stuck with original sin & exile. Who thinks that kind of ‘failure’ was not a test? She failed. God knows why. And anyway, God rules the universe. EVERYTHING is His divine providence or permissive will. So maybe if Jesus wanted to have a priestess, He would have done so before now. Meanwhile…..the world burns. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sin, save us from……

    • Linda Maria says:

      Jesus Himself lost some followers, too, and got crucified, in the end, by His own people, the Jewish leaders! Jesus knew that only a few could truly listen and understand Him! It takes a lot, to truly follow Him! Our Blessed Mother is the Role Model for women– and Christianity is about purification, to prepare for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven– NOT for pursuit of WORTHLESS earthly power, such as the foolish, goofed-up feminists are seeking!! The Christian religion is VERY HUMBLE!!

  17. No holy Catholic woman ever seriously desired ordination to priesthood.

    Don’t facilely raise St. Therese de Lisieux as a counterexample. Understand the difference between literal and figurative uses of language before you embarrass yourself.

    No holy Catholic woman today would ever seriously desire ordination to priesthood.

    Any woman who aspires to ordination has a false conception of priesthood, a false conception of Church, a false conception of anthropology, a false conception of Christ and a false conception of sacraments.

    • FromThePew says:

      Yes, there is a difference in wanting a personal relationship with Jesus & turning that desire into a misguided idea that leads to wanting to be a priestess. As you clearly point out, holy Catholic women & Saints are blessed & accept this. Who/what was the first SIN in the Holy Bible? Eve was the instigator, was weak & listened to the lies of satan, was drawn to the ‘be like God’ idea, & ‘sweet talked? or dragged?’ poor Adam down too. Call It ‘the curse of EVE HUBRIS’ or ‘Eve the first rebel against God’. Just saying: If God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit wanted women priests we would have them BY NOW! Who is like God? (paraphrasing St Michael) Who is like God to think they KNOW better? Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins…

  18. At our 11:00 Mass we always pray for vocations. Is the Holy Spirit saying no or not yet? We can’t have women priests, married priests (except in rare cases) Most of you here don’t want gay priests, no matter how celibate. Our diocaise loathes communion services on Sundays. Reminds me of a punchline on a sermon where God says to the guy who drowned “I sent you a life ring, a boat and a helicopter.”

    • Catherine says:

      “I sent you a life ring, a boat and a helicopter.” = Yet Eve, C&H & Joanna, all ignored.

      Genesis 3:13-13 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. – Douay-Rheims Bible

      Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous – Douay-Rheims Bible

      Genesis 19:24 And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. -Douay-Rheims Bible

    • Linda Maria says:

      It takes a HOLY CHURCH, C&H– to raise, train, and ordain HOLY PRIESTS!! The Church is NOT WORLDLY– and has nothing to do with WORLDLY POWER AND POLITICS!! The sacred Priesthood– is VERY HOLY and HUMBLE!! Better to prayerfully attend a humble, quiet, “priest-less” Communion Service, than to go to a huge Mass, said by a big prelate– who is NOT VERY HOLY, and dissents from the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals, in his sermons, and daily life!!

    • With all the Catholic couples contracepting and having fewer children, there are fewer sons for potential priestly vocations.

      What are bishops and priests doing to encourage vocations?

      The dioceses with bishops who foster and model fidelity in doctrine, reverent worship and courage in confronting cultural evils are attracting a high number of vocations relative to the population. Consider Lincoln, Nebraska. Also, parishes in which only males may be altar boys foster more priestly vocations.

      Why would an ardent Catholic man want to be a priest in a feminized, rebellious religious order or in a diocese in which priests model and preach the false gospel of “nice” and cultural leftism?

      The problem is not the male priesthood…

      • the problem is a lack of holiness in bishops, priests and families. If you build a holy Church, the priestly vocations will come.

        Priesthood isn’t a career; it’s a calling. Stir in men the desire to be holy and to be a sacrament (in persona Christi) for the world to make the word more holy, and you will have priestly vocations aplenty.

        The problem is you can’t awaken in men the desire to become holy priests without having models of holy priests for them to experience. Bishops and priests need to become more holy in order to attract more men to the priesthood. Families need to become more holy in order to raise their children to value holiness.

        The vocations crisis is a holiness crisis.

  19. I believe this falls under the category of LMAO.

    • FromThePew says:

      Jason, you are right…this entire article is a waste and the entire topic should give us all a laugh.

  20. Anne T. says:

    This woman is not a Catholic priest.

    Also, Bishop Mc Grath (pronounced Mc Graw) has forbidden the people in his diocese to go to such “ordinations” or services in the past several times. Whether or not he went later to the ordination of an Episcopal priestess, as one person wrote, I have no idea, but I doubt that he would considering how he has told others not to do so in the past.

    If anyone has information about him going to such an ordination, please give us the website showing that he did.

  21. I am a canon lawyer and this woman may have been through a ritual ceremony, but it did not result in her being ordained as a Catholic Priest. Canon 1024 clearly states: “Only a baptized man can validly receive sacred ordination.” END OF STORY!!!

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.