In an article in The Catholic Telegraph, there was the following statement by Sr Louise Akers (she of the green hair in a previously posted picture) said the following to explain why she couldn't recant her stand on women's ordination: “For me to publicly support the current church teaching forbidding women’s ordination would be a lie. The value, dignity and equality of womanperson is at the core of my stance.”
Womanperson??????????????????????? What is that supposed to be PC speak for? I did a google search & couldn't find it anywhere.
Meanwhile, I wish to applaud Archbishop Pilarczyk for his clear explanaition of his actions: "“Questions have been raised about the role of a diocesan bishop and the teaching of catechetics in his diocese,” Archbishop Pilarczyk told The Catholic Telegraph Sept. 3. “It is a bishop’s responsibility to provide authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching in his diocese. Persons who are not in accord with the teaching of the church should not expect to be allowed to teach catechetical leaders or others in the name of the church.”
Her public position, he noted, is in defiance of the church’s teaching.
“We don’t hire people to teach only infallible doctrine; we hire people to teach what’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” he explained. “As a result, Sister Louise may not teach in the name of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati or at any venue for which the archdiocese is responsible.”"
Wow, how refreshing to see a Bishop clearly state what his role as a bishop entails. & furthermore, to actually do it.
Maybe we can put a picture (the 1 with the Joker hair?) of Sr Louise & the word dissident in the next edition of the dictionary as the definition of womanperson.
1 Comments:
At 11/9/09 3:11 PM , TH2 said...
"Womanperson"! It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. Here we see the final linguistic consequences of political correctness.
Does this,then,make me a "manperson"?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home