Thank God (some of) our enemies are idiots

This amused me, and for a moment, I was so appalled by its shlocky, ham-handed tone-deafness that I was convinced it couldn’t be anything but an exercise by agent provocateurs against women’s ordinations. But, no, evidently this comes courtesy of the Church’s enemies:

Catholics must always be grateful that, however cunning and malicious are our enemies outside the Church, the ones within are so often pathetic, banal, and contemptible.

About these ads

46 thoughts on “Thank God (some of) our enemies are idiots

  1. Well, I guess every time I might be tempted to convert to the R.C.s I can just watch this video again.

    Is there anybody on this cursed earth who is willing to step in and authoritatively discipline these bubble headed idiots?

    I mean seriously, how can you faithful Catholics stand it? I attended St. Mary’s Basilica (in Natchez, MS) on Christmas Eve. It is without a doubt the most beautiful Catholic sanctuary in Mississippi. I wanted to hear some good Christmas music, and I was not disappointed. However, as soon as the priest and female lectors began the Mass, I felt like I was being slowly emasculated. I could have preached a better homily on the spot, with but ten seconds worth of preparation, simply by re-reading the appointed texts and explaining them.

    Instead, all I heard from Father was how Christmas “proves that human beings are good, because Jesus became one of us. And because he became one of us, and because we’re good, we therefore must take good care of ourselves and avoid activities that harm our bodies.” So Christmas was turned into an opportunity to speak against smoking and over-eating.

    Dancing priestess wannabees and fem priest boys who can’t even tell us why Christ’s Incarnation is important. I don’t know how my faithful Catholic friends maintain their sanity.

    • Simulated ordination of women already incurs automatic excommunication, JPII authoritatively resolved forever and in the negative any discussion about the elevation of women to holy orders, and I semi-regularly hear stories of dismissals from the clerical state (for clerics) and termination of employment (for Church staff) of those who voice support for women’s ordination. What more would you like, given that public beheadings are off the table?

      • I guess I would like proof that these particular fembots in this particular video were disciplined by the particular bishop who has jurisdiction over whichever particular diocese houses the particular school in which this stupid video was filmed.

        Since you asked “what more would [I] like,” I would also like to see that de facto woman Cardinal Dolan de-frocked.

        I would like to see some Roman Catholic leader do something dangerous, and get the Becket treatment because he did something dangerously awesome. But nope; all we see are faithful priests get kicked out of their own parishes because they try to tell some lesbians that they can’t take communion while living in a state of mortal sin.

        Oh, and I also enjoyed the funeral of Ted Kennedy, wherein Cardinal O’Malley helped to send the good senator on his way with the blessings of the Church. And wherein the homilist essentially pronounced Mr. Kennedy a saint, expressing assurances that Ted was already in heaven.

        At some point the rhetoric about the R.C. Church being the one and only true Church has to have some nexus with our daily experience. And what I, a very sympathetic non-Catholic experience is a big marshmallow church of fluff ‘n stuff.

        Sorry.

      • Finn. You know Bishop Fisher was alone, right? Being a saint and being an upper-middle level manager of a large non-profit are in some tension. :-)

        As many people have remarked over the centuries, we know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church because only that Church could have survived the RCC’s bishops.

        But, if you must have recent bishops saintly, outspoken, and strong, I commend to you one of my personal favs, Joseph Mindszenty. Or, you could prayerfully contemplate the courage of Bp Thaddeus Ma, languishing still after having been arrested in July by the ChiComs. You might even say a prayer for the latter.

      • I like you, Finn McCool. This is as dangerous a man as you’ll see these days, in public. The really dangerous ones get chased out (or take off) quietly, early.

      • To Proph: *thumbs up*

        Also: “As many people have remarked over the centuries, we know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church because only that Church could have survived the RCC’s bishops.”

        : )

  2. It’s generational work, Finn.

    If I were an advocate of WO, I’d be sorely embarrassed by that video. I might even be tempted to reconsider my advocacy. If nothing else, it suggests that Catholic priestess fem-bating is an intellectual backwater. When all arguments are decisively overturned, turn to Karaoke. I’m certain it is quite convincing to the convinced.

  3. My favorite part of being a Protestant: when these people take over, we can secede, take our money and man-hours with us and watch their pathetic excuse of a church die from afar.

      • It is good that interdenominational tensions flare up occasionally amongst us. Relativism is like the One Ring, or perhaps a universal solvent: if we, in the spirit of relativism, surrender our alleigances to our individual denominations in order to work more effectively as a coherent Orthosphere against liberalism (and, in the unlikely event of victory, against Islam), we ourselves will become corrupted by the taint of relativism, and it will establish a foothold in our mentalities, eventually corrupting everything. These little exchanges, I believe, are a bit like frequent, regular Confession: they help to keep us clean so that we don’t examine ourselves one day and find that it’s already too late. In fighting relativism, we must never adopt it as a weapon, or we ourselves will be corrupted and destroyed by it.

  4. Admittedly I haven’t watched the video; already see far more depravity and degeneration every single day than I’d want to witness in a lifetime.

    But the sickening call for women priests (as absurd and impossible as it is in the One True Church) in fact fits the general state of affairs when the vast majority of priests no longer have any sense of what priesthood really is. When vocations are viewed as a career and opportunity for self-realization and self-gratification rather than attaining holiness, imitating Christ, and leading the faithful to become holy, it’s not surprising women, in a lust after power, notoriety and self-satisfaction clamor for their ‘fair share’ (or ‘equality’).

    If these deluded women had any genuine call of a vocation, there are countless religious orders where they could do just that. Of course a life of obedience, service and self-sacrifice is the very last thing these proud, selfish souls would ever want. And when have you last seen women trying to imitate Mary, the most perfect female role model? Oh wait, that would require humility and doing God’s will instead of their own…

    • Genuinely curious as to why female clergy would be “absurd and impossible” in the “One True Church”? And why do you think women who would be interested in ordination are after “power, notoriety and self-satisfaction”? Is this what men are gifted with when they become priests?

      Why would you have so much animosity toward women who want to serve a parish community with obedience, humility and self-sacrifice?

      There was no actual doctrine about women in Church leadership until the Decretum Gratiani from the 12th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gratiani), and this was based largely on writings by Augustine of Hippo (an individual who even Catholic histories admit as mysogynistic http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418) in the fourth century AD.

      This is an interesting article that alludes to Christ having included women as apostles (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/women-as-priests.html?_r=0). And it may be well worth researching St. Thecla, a woman quite possibly ordained by St. Paul.

      I can’t help but think that it is this kind of “justified” anger and belittling behavior, that is tearing the Church apart from within.

      • You seem to have not read much of the original comment. In clerical life (the priesthood), a man (male) becomes most like Christ, the ideal man, particularly at the altar, where the words of consecration, the words of Christ Himself, are spoken in the first person. As pg has pointed out, the priesthood has, unfortunately, been warped into a form of career, and seen through the perverse lens of feminism as ‘power’. And so in a lust after this imagined ‘power’, women seek to become priests, which would make the liturgy a heretical, blasphemous, mockery.

        And as pg has also pointed out, nuns can serve the parish community perfectly too. And it isn’t very obedient, humble or self-sacrificial to go against millennia of Sacred Tradition and to disobey the Pope himself (JPII: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance…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.”, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which the CDF has declared “[while] itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church).

    • John, I know well the history and reasoning behind the Church’s stance. But nowhere does the Church stoop to calling names. Nowhere does this fit the definition of the absurd. Nowhere does it say these women are “lusting” (and again, lusting after the power, notoriety and self-satisfaction rightly granted to male pastoral priests?).

      If anything seems absurd it is the argument of personhood. If God were to appear on earth as human He had to assume the form of either a man or a woman. If He wanted to be heard (2,000 yo and often today), He had best be heard through the lips of a man – because Western culture has consistently granted the above (P, N & S-S) to men. This does not mean that He would not welcome women into pastoral priesthood.

      Again, the Church had no official writings about female leadership until the Decretum Gratiani, and then the Corpus Juris Canonici from the 16th century (a little later than Christ) (http://digital.library.ucla.edu/canonlaw/). A document which reads that:

      “By a principle of civil law, no woman can exercise a public office. By Church Law women are equally barred from all spiritual functions and offices.” “A woman can, therefore, not receive any ecclesiastical ordination. If she receives one, the ordination will not imprint a sacramental character . . . .” “No woman, however saintly she may be, may either preach or teach . . . .” “A wife is under the power of her husband, the husband not under the power of the wife. The husband may punish her. A wife is obliged to follow her husband to wherever he decides to fix his residence.” “A woman is bound to greater modesty than a man.” “A woman is sooner excused on account of fear than a man. She is dispensed from going to Rome to obtain absolution from an excommunication.”

      Other than the teaching on female ordination, the Church has changed its stance on every issue above.

      [Again noted that both the DG and the CJC were largely based on the writings of Augustine, a man who wrote of women and slaves, “It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater . . . This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.”

      -- Are you speaking for the Church in saying that it continues to support the idea that women are 'lesser' and have 'weaker brains', Augustine's reason for not allowing women in leadership?]

      • peacefulpartings,

        You are just trying to turn this into an argument about St. Augustine. Let’s see what St. Paul has to say (you may be familiar with him). “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. For I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over men; but she is to keep quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin. Yet women will be saved by childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with modesty.” (Douay-Confraternity translation)

        The prohibition against women in the priesthood is rooted in the order of creation (man first, woman second), and in the order of the Fall (woman first, the man second).

        It seems like the best thing for you would be to find a good husband, love the heck out of him, and find your place of service in the Church within the appointed boundaries.

        God bless!

      • I have not said anything about Augustine, other than to point to his view of women as being used as a primary basis for Church doctrine on women in leadership.

        And the apostle Paul is reported to have actually supported at least one woman’s ability to baptize.

        — But the point being, that both of these individuals were men writing within a culture that believed in the spiritual and intellectual inferiority of both women and slaves. Within the same contexts they admonished women to be subordinate to their husbands and slaves subordinate to their masters.

        The Church finally (not until 1965!!) made an official statement as to the abomination of slavery but has yet to do the same about the abomination of sexist doctrine.

        Misogyny is a deep-seated belief with much benefit to the men who subscribe to it, therefore I hope you understand that my intent is not to argue with those men as yourself. My intent is to provide some objective outlook to others who are only provided with an exclusive view of the history of that doctrine here.

        And many blessings to your wife! May she always be held in the gentle compassion of an all-loving, equitable Christ.

      • @Finn McCool An awfully Catholic response, for someone who isn’t Catholic :)

        @peacefulpartings Calling names: Thomas More VS Martin Luther :). Yes, insulting heretics is as much an unofficial Catholic sport as trying to make broad mental reservations.

        There are a thousand and one reasons why the priesthood is exclusively male. Here’s a scriptural one for size:

        [A]ccording to the Catholic Church (and if those wanting female priests want female Catholic priests, this certainly matters), the priest exists in persona Christi, that is, in the role of Christ to his Church. As the encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii points out:

        The priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed “another Christ”; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you,” is spoken to the priest, and hence the priest, like Christ, continues to give “glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will.”

        “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.” (John 20:21) Christ speaks this to his apostles, who are to become the first priests. If we doubt that Christ was speaking specifically about the priesthood, and not just about the general call for all people to go out and preach the good news, we must read the next part:

        And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:22)

        Your average Christian does not have the power to go to his brother, his girlfriend, or the man he met on the street and forgive his sins. It follows that this power given — for it was given — was given to a very special group of people. The Church calls them priests.

        How did the Father “send” Christ? We’ve already established that he was sent as the divine bridegroom [see link]. Thus the priests, sent as Christ, are also sent as the bridegroom. The priest is a man, as Christ was a man, as a bridegroom is always a man. These realities are neither accidents nor bigotries, but the consistent expression of God’s will for His Holy Church. To have a female priest is less akin to the entirely true statement that “women are as good as men” and far more akin to the statement that “women have penises”. The role of bridegroom is not something that can be separated from maleness, just as the role of bride cannot be separated from femaleness, and thus the priest — insofar as he participates in the very role of the Divine Bridegroom, Jesus Christ — must be male.

        Most of themse arguments centre on the fact that masculinity and femininity are mutually exclusive and distinct, you know, that official Church teaching on gender that Orthosphereans really like and feminists really hate, ‘complementarianism’.

        At any rate, il Papa has closed the case, and as your dear friend St. Augustine is famously paraphrased, ‘Roma locuta est, causa finite est‘. Subject to the authority of Christ through the Church, and you are guaranteed that no harm shall befall your soul.

        Serviam! Pro Gloria Sancta Romana Ecclesia!

      • And the apostle Paul is reported to have actually supported at least one woman’s ability to baptize.

        Anyone can baptize. Even an atheist in theory, if he (or she) intends to do what the Church intends and uses proper form (trinitarian) and matter (water).

        If God were to appear on earth as human He had to assume the form of either a man or a woman. If He wanted to be heard (2,000 yo and often today), He had best be heard through the lips of a man

        Well certainly God would be better heard through the lips of an earthly king or mighty warrior. Seems like he didn’t understand ancient middle eastern culture as well as you think.

        This is absurd. God was made flesh in the form of a man because God is masculine–eternal masculine–infinitely more masculine than the most macho, testosterone poisoned muscle head. All of creation is eternal feminine. My own soul (alma) is feminine in comparison to HIM. To think that the choice of male form was arbitrary, and suited only to “speak” to a culture (which, BTW, largely ignored him) is to fail utterly to grok the deep gender written upon creation by her Creator.

      • In the Catholic Church, Baptism is a priestly function that laity is only meant to perform when ministers are lacking (CCC 903).

        And my Church taught that God is not gendered. Again, yours seems to be a different church.

      • The normative prohibition on the laity carrying out baptisms is canonical, not sacramental. It’s done so that the Church can witness and therefore record baptisms. Again, anyone can baptize sacramentally: Catechism itself witnesses to this.

      • You have completely ignored the rational case against the ordination of women. The causa finita est appeal is very distasteful, but a necessary safety net (for you) lest my intellectual faculties fail to demonstrate the truth of the Church’s position. You have simply sidestepped the primary arguments made by all defenders of the orthodoxy here, or at least been very selective in picking the arguments you choose to acknowledge as existing, as well as in interpreting them.

        God is not gendered; true. John Paul I taught that God is Father as well as Mother; true. But His primary aspect is His power, and power, in the relationship between male and female, belongs to the male (Kristor is awesome). Hence God is always represented as male.

      • So, we just come back to, “Men can be like Christ and women cannot?” Case closed then.

        Too simplistic. Why not men can be like Christ in certain ways that women cannot?

      • @peacefulpartings:
        >>The Church finally (not until 1965!!) made an official statement as to the abomination of slavery but has yet to do the same about the abomination of sexist doctrine.

        If you weren’t as influenced by leftist, anti-Catholic propaganda you’d know that popes have condemned unjust (e.g. racial) slavery and slave trade ever since the early 15th century (since this form of slavery began in larger scale in the Age of Discoveries). In fact those who enslaved the natives were to incur excommunication ipso facto. They also declared that foreign peoples, even if they were outside the faith, must not be deprived of liberty nor property. Slavery has been common and accepted practice throughout human history, and it was Catholic moral teaching that, before most anyone else, condemned such practices. In fact, have we not had Christianity, slavery might well still be widespread.

        >> Misogyny is a deep-seated belief…

        As for St. Augustine – you no doubt also consider God a misogynist, after all, it is His creation, His hierarchy and His order of things. Personally, given the choice, I shall happily side with a giant and saint of the caliber of St. Augustine (and countless generations of our ancestors, in fact all of humanity until a few decades ago) in opposition to the “enlightened” modern man of the present day (who glorifies sin – the more abominable, the better- and destroys all that is good, true and beautiful while exalting everything evil, wrong and ugly, as well as being responsible for, among other things, the worst mass murder in the history of mankind). If we had bishops like St. Augustine today, some of the countless “Catholics” heading for damnation could see the light and be saved.

        >>Other than the teaching on female ordination, the Church has changed its stance on every issue above.

        Indeed. And thanks to her modernization and adjustment to the spirit of the times and fashions of the world countless millions souls are lost. The Truth is timeless, whether we like it or not. The fact that modern man no longer believes in “outdated” and “silly” concepts like sin, hell, etc doesn’t change anything. (In any case, he will believe when he gets there.)

        So, now to the original issue…

        As for the women clamoring for ordination – they most definitely do not have an actual vocation, for a vocation to priesthood is not a mere attraction one has, but is a call from God. Hence it’s absurd to claim theirs is a true vocation. Furthermore, they are not even Catholics, because if they were, they would not reject and rebel against divine law, Church tradition, canon law, and reject all authority, hierarchy and divine order, nor would they aim for sacrilege and mockery of God. What they are saying is, I am a law unto myself, I will do it my way and exalt myself.

        Yet this is not about us and our will but about God. Priestly office is not meant for the honor or advancement of man but for service to God and the Church.

        History, ever since the Apostles and early Fathers, shows the first Christians believed that Christ intended only men to become priests. (The heretical gnostic sect allowed women in priestly roles, which was duly condemned by the Church.) This was an unquestioned tradition from the very beginning. (The Protestant heretics changed the role of their priesthood from the 16th cent on. And pagans, of course, always had female priestesses… it’s fitting that these calls for women’s ordination are so widespread during these neo-pagan times. That, incidentally, also means that the Apostles preaching the Gospel to the Greco-Roman world, with its pagan gods and priestesses, could have ordained women if this was simply about cultural norms and not about remaining faithful to the Lord and His will.)

        It remains a fact that Jesus, in His selection of male Apostles, chose men to be His priests. (Those who are not happy with this “discrimination” and “sexism” need to take it up with Him.)
        That has nothing to do with inferiority or discrimination and everything with God’s plan for His Church. After all, the most perfect creation, Bl. Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, wasn’t made a priest. As Pope Innocent III wrote in early 13th cent: “Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”. (And of course throughout Church history women played a very important role, incl the many great saints, founders of religious order, visionaries, countless holy religious and of course mothers of families passing on the faith to next generations.)

        Christ, at the Last Supper, instituted the sacred priesthood through the sacrament of Holy Orders, in order to continue His divine mission on earth. He chose men to do His work for Him and gave these men, the priests, the power to bring sanctifying grace to us (which is necessary for salvation). Priesthood is both a great gift and the greatest responsibility – for it is responsibility over souls. (Women, who tend to demand all the rights without any of the corresponding responsibilities, should take a note of that.) The priest is the instrument our Lord has chosen; He acts through His priests who exercise His authority. Nobody but ordained priests can turn bread into the body of Christ, forgive sins, etc.

        However, the greater the grace the more severe the punishment for sin for priests who fail to work for the salvation of souls. It is not up to the priest (nor up to the Church) to test novel ideas. God doesn’t need our advice, He doesn’t need us to give Him new ideas, He is timeless, He doesn’t need to get updated to fit the fashions of the day and the modern liberal sensitivities of a feminized society.

        As said above by John Khoo –
        A priest is an alter Christus – another Christ. He, by the power of his sacred ordination, acts in persona Christi (in the Person of Christ). During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the priest acts in the place of Christ who uses him to offer Himself in sacrifice to the Father, in an unbloody renewal of Calvary. In the Mass, the priest, acting in the Person of Christ, consecrates the Host saying, ‘This is My Body’ and ‘This is the Chalice of My Blood’ – he does not say, ‘This is the Body of Christ,’ nor ‘This is the Chalice of His Blood’. Similarly, the priest – acting in the Person of Christ – says ‘I absolve thee from thy sins'; rather than ‘Christ absolves thee from thy sins’. As Christ is a man, so His priest, who acts in the Person of Christ, must be a man.

        Further, Christ is the Bridegroom and Head of the Church. His sacrifice on Calvary is the consummation of His marriage to the Church, His bride. Therefore it is man – based on his physical nature – who has the ability to receive Holy Orders; it would be impossible for a woman to truly and sacramentally act in the Person of the Bridegroom. That doesn’t take away from the nature of women, just as not being able to bear children doesn’t take away from the nature of men. It simply means the Almighty and All-knowing God has chosen it to be that way. Just as it is not possible for a man to be a mother, it is not possible for a woman to be a (validly ordained) priest. Man and woman each have their own role and function. It’s only our deluded (er, I meant ‘enlightened’) society that pretends men and women to be equal (as in identical/interchangeable) and to have no distinct roles and abilities.

        In a sane society this [women priesthood] would not even be a matter of discussion, much less dispute. Alas, ours is as insane and unhealthy a society as there can ever be… We should certainly pray for these confused and deluded souls, but we must not indulge them by listening to their entirely unreasonable demands and complaints.

    • My favorite was “I’m a Catholic.” Really? What does that statement even mean to them, since they don’t obey the Church’s teachings, defer to its leaders, respect its traditions, etc. What’s left of Catholicism after you jettison those things? Ah, right: cross-dressing lesbians.

      And giant puppets.

    • There’s a good take on it here. In short, they’re intended to shock and scandalize pious Catholics out of their bourgeois sensibilities, to jangle their nerves, and to soften them up for the coming revolution.

      • That’s a really good article. To summarize, “radical puppetry” comes to us via Bertold Brecht but ultimately from the propaganda campaigns directed at the peasants of the early Soviet Union. Yuk and more yuk. Also explains why they haunt WTO protests and the like.

      • “In short, they’re intended to shock and scandalize pious Catholics out of their bourgeois sensibilities, to jangle their nerves, and to soften them up for the coming revolution.”

        Isn’t that all modern art?

  5. I watched this last night, had to play another song in order to get it out of my head before going to sleep, and woke up to this post in my email. To those who have not yet done so: I recommend ignoring it entirely. I have successfully never heard the song from which this parody (?) is based, and yet this repetitious tune will stick with you like a demon. That’s pop culture for you.

    My reaction was just the same. Initially, I thought it was a joke from our side, and then I watched in disgust, realizing its tackiness stemmed from seriousness.

    These are people of ugliness. It’s all very consistent, honestly.

  6. Love your blog. It’s one of my favorite blogs, after Faith and Heritage | Christ and The West.

    If you are on twitter, you should follow Western Christianity, the best traditionalist Christian feed on twitter:

    https://twitter.com/West_and_Christ

    They have tweeted some of your articles here.

  7. This was absurd. That’s 3 minutes of my life I can’t ever get back.

    I have noticed the people often making “pro-women’s ordination” arguments ignore the far-reaching consequences to the faith. If anyone who supports women’s ordination bothers to note, every single Christian faith ordaining women has eventually become trapped into a fork: on one direction the church continues to fall into depravity, and the other direction is schism. Has anyone bothered to look at what has happened to the Anglican church? The Episcopalian? The Lutheran?

    The ordination of women always serves as an illusion of a high point, when in reality afterwards there is a plummet.

  8. Pingback: If you reject modern culture... - Page 10 - Christian Forums

  9. There is something that doesn’t make sense to me about the liberal mind that is brought to light by the women’s “ordination” movement.

    On the one hand they discredit the idea that the will of Another (i.e., God) in making them women should have anything to do with whether they can be priests or not. But then on the other hand, they acknowledge their dependence upon the will of another (i.e., the bishop, by his willful laying on of hands) in making them priests.

    They have no problem declaring themselves proper material for priesthood in spite of what the Church holds to be true; why do they seem to have a problem then with simply declaring themselves actual priests? Why does the will of the bishop, in this case, mean so much to them?

    • And actually, many of them do simply declare themselves priests and minister accordingly, since, at least in America, no bishops will do it.

      But yes, Kristor’s answer is basically right. They don’t just want the job title. They want power. It’s all, always, about power with them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s