Cardinal Says Women’s Ordination Makes Sense Because Church Could Pay Women Less To Minister

November 24, 2014 by  
Filed under Libs & Trads


Cardinal Sean O’Malley told reporters earlier today that his recent interview with 60 Minutes was difficult because he did not have time to fully delve into how insane his opinion was on the matter of women’s ordination.

“I hope that one take-away from my 60 Minutes interview will be that cardinals, bishops and priests are human, and that we love the Church, and that we say really stupid things sometimes,” said the cardinal. “If you watch the interview, for example, what I’m pretty much saying is that if I were founding a church, that I’d love to have women priests, but that, unfortunately, Jesus Christ beat me to it, and now we have to deal with the consequences of something different. It’s difficult to explain your opinion in just a 20-minute spot. You could only imagine the crap I’d say if I had the full 60 minutes. I would’ve said that if I were founding the world, I’d love to give men the ability to get pregnant.”

The cardinal went on to say that by ordaining women, not only would it be spiritually beneficial to the Church, but financially as well, going on to cite numerous statistics proving that, on average, women make less than men.

“It’s just a fact, so don’t get all angry. I’m just saying that the Church could use some extra funds right now and if you can get people to minister for ten or twenty percent less…I mean, why not? Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to really go into detail.”

  • James Kachman

    How we Romyn Catholycs are expected to stand for this patriarchical oppression, I’ll never know. How dare the Cardinal refuse to consider ordaining trans-hypotenuse-poly-gendernorm-uterus-bearers? Not everything is about you, cis Womyn!

    • Billy Danner

      I am sooo confused. Do I laugh or cry?

      • laugh!

        • Johan Peter Oliveire

          ’til you tear up :’D


          • T. Audrey Glamour

            Tear up (drip) or tear up (rip)?

            Now I’m confused.

          • Johan Peter Oliveire

            Rats! I guess I should have stuck with “cry”. But I know I changed for a reason.
            Now I’m tearing up (well, not really) about being torn (not ripped) between the two. 🙂

          • PureCatholic

            So we should “cry up”????? jk.. 🙂

  • Skyler von Enn

    The Cardinal also said that people cracking down on his strange comments were a “disaster”.

  • T. Audrey Glamour

    Pregnant men?

    I sure hope the rumor is true that this is a satire site.

    • Kjetil Kringlebotten

      Rumor? Is it that hard to press the ‘about us’ link or read the text at the bottom of thr page?

      • T. Audrey Glamour

        New here, eh? 😉

  • Emily

    This is the Catholic “Onion”. Y’all need to calm down.

  • ha ha ha! Good one. I hope he gets even MORE air time for our amusement

  • Sr. Mary Brigid

    Heck, yeah! And they’d probably wash and iron their own vestments and altar linens, too! This women’s ordination thing is sounding better all the time!

    • Johan Peter Oliveire

      I must say, Sister, thanks for your ministry of humour. I always enjoy your comments here, and I appreciate them elsewhere.

    • Rockie Overlunde

      What altar? You mean table!

  • Maggie

    Nearly spit out my coffee reading this!

  • MIKE

    When speaking in public why doesn’t the Cardinal just stick to the Doctrine of the Faith as contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” 1997, and the footnotes which point to specific related Sacred Scripture ?

    Quite frankly this Cardinal’s personal opinions mean nothing to me, and based upon the 60 minute interview have proven to be in error and contradict true Church teaching.

    • MIKE

      Sacred Scripture is the speech of God (CCC 81);
      The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) contains the Doctrine of the Faith.
      These are the two most important books in the Catholic Faith, and contain the truth of what the Church teaches as why.

      Don’t trust O’Malley to get it right.

      • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

        Hi Mike; I nominate you for the MSA!

    • Ginkgo100

      This one gets the missed satire award!

      • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

        Ginkgo– this is a great idea to promote Eye of the Tiber. They should create an award for the commenter who most Missed the Satire. The comedic possibilities for the Awards Ceremony are almost endless!

        • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

          Heck, we could start right now. Let’s start calling it the Missed Satire Award: MSA for short. Watch me give it out right here, right now! 🙂

    • Bil Carter

      Wow. You really, really, REALLY look like a fool right now. You are about as perceptive as Play-Doh.

      • MIKE

        It’s easy to call names like a childish boy.
        Back up your claims using official documentation.
        (Provide links.)

        • Bil Carter

          No, you DUNCE. You completely missed the fact that you are on a SATIRE site. O’Malley made no such claims. It’s all a joke, and you fell for it. And you still don’t get it.

          I should “back up my claims using official documentation”? Of what? I claimed that you were as perceptive as Play-Doh. I don’t think it’s in the Catechism, but I’m collecting more and more empirical evidence every time you write.

          • MIKE

            Name calling is the behavior of a 3 year old.

          • Bil Carter

            Yes. I’m 3 years old. But I recognize satire when I see it. You aren’t as sharp, however.

  • lifeknight

    Seriously, do these guys not get it? When being interviewed drive home YOUR point regardless of the question. However, it sounds like the cardinal would have done better with a sock in his mouth.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd


  • fredx2

    The Cardinal elaborated further: ‘And if I were setting up a church, I’d have crumbcake and beer for the Eucharist. And not only would we have altar girls, we’d have dancing altar girls – you know, like Vegas. And Elton John would be the head of the CDF. He could sing his pronouncements – that would be fun, don’t you think?

    “Levon wears his war wounds like a crown…he wants to take communion…because he likes the taste…but he can’t because he’s divorced and remarried…

  • Lee Bacchi

    Yes, the GOP would certainly be in favor of that!!

  • Anna Baker

    Pure garbage. No better news? It would be nice to see obedience, their is true JOY in it! If God says NO woman Priest, end of story. Woman has special role in the church, raising Saints for God. This is better than Priesthood that you people insisted…. If Jesus wanted woman to be Priest, He would have made His Mother Mary the first Priestess, but NO! So don’t try to insist this idea, because its not gonna work…. because a woman cannot personified Jesus. Only Man- Priest…

    • Rev Bindy

      Mary brought forth Jesus. Priests bring forth Jesus at the altar. Ergo.

  • Luis Gutierrez

    To balance things out, what about a female-only priesthood for the next 2000 years? We cannot do any worse…

    • wiffle

      Ha, ha, ha. I guess you haven’t seen groups of women together. (I’m a woman.) Yes, it can get worse, much, much worse with the wrong ones.

      • Luis Gutierrez

        What about the right ones? Presumably, their vocation would be equally tested prior to ordination.

        • wiffle

          I don’t think it would work that way. It’s long and complicated, highly subjective, and you’re welcome to disagree. My prediction is that this ends in pronouncing me some sort of woman hater. 🙂

          But… it appears to me that women’s personalities, particularly in positions of authority are wildly uneven in ways that the men’s are not. Men end up with a solid “average” personalities, that tend to cause them to maintain the status quo. Women are either such rock stars at it that they are very hard to replace or they totally and complete disintegrate the situation.

          Overall that means that both men and women are equal in the long run as a group. And yet if you’re looking for continuity of freestanding social institutions, I leans towards men just for boring, stable, and average most of the time. When things go wrong under a woman, they tend to go really, really, really wrong. And if they go really, really, really right the next guy, quite literally, will be a let down even if he’s perfectly competent.

          Interestingly, apparently those religions that do ordain women tend to lead very small congregations – 300 max. I’m not sure what to make of it, other than yet another real world suggestion that woman are ill suited to the role specifically of Pastor. Especially in this day and age, we can’t afford Priests who can only do small.

          And you know, as recovering feminist it’s really all okay. Paul calls on men to love their wives, suggesting men don’t do love very well or very naturally. And yet loving God is the key to the kingdom of Heaven. It’s perhaps already that in terms of salvation women have the deck stacked in their favor.

          There’s no particular reason why some jobs can’t be left to men, particularly if they are naturally more suited to the task. Women often run everything else behind the scenes. Part of submitting to God is to stop asking Him to make the world in your image and start asking Him what he wills for it.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Well, we shall see. Most of the masculine and feminine traits you mention are culturally conditioned. What goes around comes around. What really matters is the glory of God and the good of souls. Peace be with you!

          • wiffle

            Sometimes, occasionally they can be culturally conditioned. For the most part, they are not, though, as far as I can see. My son and daughter both know how to do the dishes, take out the garbage and work with tools, thanks to my husband and I. But it’s my daughter decorates the house and spontaneously gives gifts and plays with babies with no prompting from us. Likewise my son loves to laugh and play video games and be a boy, also with no prompting from us. God’s Creation is a true wonder. 🙂

          • Luis Gutierrez

            There is man in woman, and there is woman in man. John Paul II offers a very insightful explanation of this reality in his Theology of the Body, about Genesis 2.

          • wiffle

            Of course. But that doesn’t change two sexes or their biology or some natural tendencies that spring from those biologies. It does not make a man or a woman or a woman a man, even if there are buried within us traits of all humanity.

            I’ll offer it’s a great thing that my daughter naturally has an interest in babies and my son not so much. And it’s even okay if daughters don’t show that early interest – sometimes they grow up to be fabulous mothers anyway. If anything, the best thing I ever did was shake off the modern training that there’s something inherently degrading about have feminine impulses and desires.

            If you think about society really desperately needs women focused on being wives and mothers (that concept does not exclude paid work, by the way.) We do not continue without children. We will continue with a few less accountants, lawyers, and here.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            I certainly agree that men are men and women are women, but there is no biological impediment, or psychological impediment, or theological impediment, or any impediment other than patriarchal gender ideology, to the ordination of women. Tell me something that a priest must do that a woman cannot do.

          • wiffle

            “Tell me something that a priest must do that a woman cannot do.”

            *grin* Be a man. 🙂 I’ve told you my line of reasoning as far as men versus women. There is a case to be made to leave Pastoralships to men that recognizes the sexes as equal, but with different natural gifts *and* flaws.

            The theological reason can be paraphrased as Jesus was a man and in order to act in his stead you physically need to be one. Just as if, like Mary, you hope to bear children, you’ll need to a woman.

            And this is where the rubber meets the road when submitting to God’s will. If you don’t believe or like my reasoning about why men are preferable long term, particularly in Church leadership roles, that’s fine. However, there are times when we don’t quite understand but we need to follow the rules anyway. That would be this moment. Faith is not understanding absolutely why always but doing it anyway. To really trust God is to not demand every answer right now. (<–Which alas, is one of my greater failings.)

            I've got a suspicion, mentioned previously, that women might have some built in advantages when it comes to salvation. Being a Priest in no way increases your chances of that. Looking at it a different way, it actually might drag you down by making God so many promises. I'm sure Hell is littered with the skull caps of Bishops – it's harder to say that the generations of diligent, loving, selfless Mothers are down there.

            In terms of the life ever lasting, then, the lack of the Priesthood is nothing important. In fact, I'd say to worry about it is to worry about egos, rather than more critical matters. The point of being a Priest is to serve, not be in the spotlight or be in charge. To think a Nun is less important than a Priest because she offers her services in a different way, to me, is to really not understand what Christ wants use to focus on, either in this life or the next.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            A man can *be* a man and *be* a priest. A woman can *be* a woman and *be* a priest. But there is a difference between *being* and *doing.* Please tell me something that a priest must *do* that a woman cannot *do.*

          • wiffle

            I’ve told you already. You didn’t like the answer. 🙁

            The relentless focus on forcing the sexes to be exactly the same, as shown in this series posts, is why when denominations have women priests, people slink off and Churches die.

            To be a Christian is to put your life’s focus on Christ and salvation, all of which is difficult in the extreme. Putting a woman in the Priesthood forces everyone into focusing on concerns of this life, because it’s difficult for us sheep to reconcile the differences physically. There’s already enough differences between Christ and the very human Priest before you.

            I’m not kidding when I say that at some point, people need to choose between Christian and deciding “I’m not going to be happy until women are in every single man’s role, whether or not it was appropriate or even helpful .” Since you’re here and I’m presuming you’re Catholic, do you really want to institute a change that will only serve to increase the outflow of faithful Christians, just to soothe the egos of a few men and women?

            And if people cannot submit to such a simple and harmless rule (and I outlined why it is harmless, other than to modern egos), how can they really say they’ve really submitted to Christ? *headshake*

          • Luis Gutierrez

            You are not answering my question: what must a priest ***do*** that a woman cannot do?

            The answer is: NOTHING.

            The sacraments work “ex opere operato,” i.e., the efficacy of the sacraments as channels of divine grace is not dependent on the holiness of the priest or in any other human trait. Why should it depend on gender?

            This is not about disobeying Christ. On the contrary, this is about seeking Christ;s will in today’s world rather than conforming to patriarchal gender ideology.

          • wiffle

            In order to act in Jesus’ stead a priest must a man, since physically that’s who Jesus was. Woman can’t be men, or “do” either.

            It’s like asking, why can’t men nurse babies? They have nipples. Babies could latch on. What’s the problem? Everyone can *do* the right things. Except of course, the babies don’t actually get milk.

            Clearly, modern egos, re-engineering Creation and whatever patriarchal gender ideology is *are* more important than actually seeking Christ. We can’t even submit to the idea that the genders are different with different roles to play. Why would we even imagine we’re submitting to Christ, if we can’t accept something so simple and straight forward?

            I’ve even pointed out the practical pitfalls of such a scheme. Women priests tend to lead tiny congregations, which is not helpful in a brave new world of few priests. Christian denominations that ordain women are bleeding members. I’m not kidding, look into it – the Episcopalians are literally on a death watch.

            But who cares if Catholicism dies ? It will be all “equal” for a while until the Churches close. 🙁

            Anyway, it appears we are at impasse. So it’s time to close this conversation, at least from my end. Today is Sunday here. Thanks for the conversation. Christ’s Peace Be With You.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            This is not about cultural stereotypes, or sociological factors, or numerical calculations. The priest acts in the person of Christ, but Christ is a divine person, not a human person. The body is a sacrament of the entire person, but is not the entire person. The complementarity and homogeneity of man and woman coexist in one and the same human nature, the same human nature that the Eternal Word assumed at the incarnation. For the redemption, and for the entire sacramental economy, the masculinity of Jesus is as incidental as the color of his eyes. It follows that the proper “matter” for the sacrament of Holy Orders is a baptized body, male or female. Let’s keep praying about his.

          • wiffle

            My Catholic catechism says that Jesus has two natures: one fully human and one fully divine. A Priest can only hope to somewhat mimic the fully human nature of Christ. The fully human nature of Christ was male.


            So yes, male is requirement and refusing to accept either that or the very practical considerations that women priests discourage the expansion of the faith is to refuse to really accept something fundamental about Christianity. If I may extend it further, it also is to refuse to accept nature of Creation which is paradoxical.

            As in, I am human, so I am the same as a man and yet I am a woman and I am not. I’m free to express my full and complete humanity only after I have completely accepted the difference between myself and a man. I cannot embrace my full humanity if I pretend differences in the genders don’t exist.

            Again, we’re at impasse. We may need to just agree to disagree.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Jesus Christ is *one* divine person in *two* natures, human and divine. Jesus Christ is not a human person. An ordained priest is still a human person, not a divine person. Check it out.

          • wiffle

            I did check it out and I gave you the link. 🙂 Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine. Two natures – one person, not a divine person – one person with two natures, human and divine.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            No, sorry, my faith is that Jesus Christ is a divine person and a true human being, but not a divine person. Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

          • wiffle

            This is 481, exactly quoted: “Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son. ” I also linked to you a fuller explanation from a Catholic site. Jesus had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature, in one person of God’s son.

            I cannot be anyone’s son, let alone attempt to fill in for God’s son. I am happy to say, however that I am someone’s daughter.

            There’s reason to believe that Holy Orders would *not* enable a woman to preform sacraments, just as man cannot nurse a baby despite having all the right parts. Our physicality matters. God uses our physical presence to create within his world. God does not just “poof” a baby into existence, He requires a man and woman. Especially given the dying nature of denominations that do ordain women, what hard evidence do you have that it would work, another than an assumption?

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Re. CCC 481, it clearly says that God’s Son is a divine person. But where does it say that He is a human person? In the fuller explanation in EWTN, where does it say that Jesus Christ is a human person?

            A male human person does NOT become a divine person by being ordained. So the question remains: if a baptized male can be ordained to act in the person of Christ, why is it that a baptized female cannot be so ordained?

            Again, the body is a sacrament of the entire person, but is NOT the entire person. Biological analogies are helpful to some extent, but by no means exhaust the mystery of Christ and the Church.

            And again, this is not an issue of cultural stereotypes, or sociological data, or number of people in the pews, or gender ideologies, or any other factor within human limitations in time and space, INCLUDING gender limitations. For sexual differentiation is a gift of God for procreation, but it is a limitation: a man cannot be a woman, and a woman cannot be a man.

            Indeed, in his humanity, Jesus Christ is as limited by sexual differentiation as any other human being: He is like us in ALL things but sin. Please answer my question in theological terms: why is it that a baptized female cannot be ordained to act in the person of Christ? Could you kindly find me a text of the CCC that answers this question?

          • wiffle

            “But where does it say that He is a human person? In the fuller explanation in EWTN, where does it say that Jesus Christ is a human person?”

            At this point, it seems there’s a will to misunderstand both clear texts. (The EWTN text explains that Christ was fully human person as well as a fully divine person.)

            Christ is a person, with a human nature and a divine nature. One person, 2 natures. Your arguments fully rest on ignoring the human nature of Christ’s person. A Priest acts in the role of the human nature of Christ’s person, not His divine one, which of course is impossible. That human nature was male.

            A baptized woman cannot ever act in the human nature as a male and therefore cannot be ordained. And when other Christians have tried it anyway, it’s hard to argue that the experiment was an overwhelming success.

            I think we’re at time to agree to disagree. We might be well pass it actually. 🙂

          • Luis Gutierrez

            I checked again. In both the CCC and EWTN, every time the word “person” is used refers to a divine person, the second person of the Trinity, who assumed human nature but never ceased to be a divine person to become a human person.

            Christ is a divine person, with a divine nature, who also assumed human nature; but there is no such as a person who is both human and divine. The priest acts in the person of Christ, indivisibly human and divine.

            We should not reduce the mysteries of Christ (cf. CCC 515) to biological or sociological categories. I am sure you mean well, and you may want to study John Paul II’s Theology of the Body about the *body* being a more fundamental reality than being male or female.

          • wiffle

            “The priest acts in the person of Christ, indivisibly human and divine.”

            All of your logic is sound in this post, and yet you continue to insist that it supports women in the Priesthood. Christ, divine and human had male human nature. How could a woman possibly hope to act in the two nature person of Christ when she her human nature is not that of Christ’s?

            In order to support that, the next thing you have to do is claim that the very human experience of biological sex does not matter. And when you do that, you open up our modern pandora’s box with promiscuous sex (because women want sex like men want sex, except they don’t) and people with literal mental illnesses being taken seriously in the claim they can change their sex.

            Our biological sex does matter and it’s a good thing. It deepens our spiritually, not removes from it. We learn limits. We learn that in submitting to God’s will, rather than our own ego, we can become free.

            I know you mean well, too. This has been a pleasant and civil conversation for online and it’s appreciated. 🙂

            However, the Catholic Church agrees with my interpretation (or much more properly, I agree with Hers). More study isn’t going to change my mind, just as I’m not changing yours.

            And I am a “proof is in the pudding” type of person. I’m not willing to take 100% theoretical arguments that don’t work out in real life. Modern experiments of tampering with 2000 years of thinking on this also agree with the Catholic Church. There is no Church if there are no people in it.

            That’s why I’m saying we’re at a point where we’re best served to agree to disagree. Even if I felt the ducks were 100% in row theoretically, it doesn’t work in real life. I don’t see women content with themselves or God when they take on the Priesthood. I don’t see growing Churches. I see all the discontent that the Devil offers us for pittance of ego soothing. 🙁

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Are you familiar with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? It is primarily about the sacramentality of marriage, but the fundamental reality of “body,” which precedes sexual differentiation, is applicable to all the sacraments:


            An ordained woman is perfectly capable of acting in the person of Christ, because she has a human body, which is a more fundamental reality than being a woman. This reality is more important than all our ideas about gender role perceptions of exclusion, inclusion, etc.

          • wiffle

            Again, it’s time to stop. Most of your arguments actually support the idea of a male only Priesthood. I cannot change your focus away from the idea that the lack of women Priests is great evil that must be overcome nor can you change my focus way from orthodox Catholic teaching on the matter or it’s current practical implications.

            Even if the theology were sound, I would be unwilling change my opinion based on the relative demographics disaster that correlate with denominations with women Priests. A point, I note, you have never addressed in this thread. I am not willing to sacrifice Christ and his Church to placate a few modern egos. My view of myself as a strong, independent woman does not rest on having absolutely every single opportunity of occupation available to me and I plan to teach my daughters the same.

            I will read your next post, but this one is my last. Christ’s Peace Be With You. 🙂

          • Luis Gutierrez

            “Although the
            human body in its normal constitution, bears within it the signs of sex
            and is by its nature male or female, the fact, however, that man is a
            “body” belongs to the structure of the personal subject more deeply than
            the fact that in his somatic constitution he is also male or female.”

            How is it that this supports the male-only priesthood is beyond me. I understand that this is a visceral issue for both men and women within the patriarchal culture, and cannot be resolved by reasoning alone. But reasoning should be based on a sound theological anthropology rather than denominational demographics. It was a good conversation, peace be with you too!

          • wiffle

            I’m happy to keeping praying about this. 🙂

            It’s possible to reconcile the fully equal nature of the sexes and allow Priests to be male. I’m not unfamiliar with feminist thinking and spent time thinking along those lines. It wasn’t really liberating or pleasant, truthfully. It wasn’t until I really accepted how God created woman and men differently that I felt at ease with my full humanity and could rejoice at the gifts given just to women *and* just to men.

  • DRWagner53

    His explanations and further fantasies are worse than his comment on women’s religion. Whoever ordained this man should also be excommunicated.