"But when Christ came as high priest...He entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with His own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God."
-Hebrews 9:11-14

Questions?

Have questions about Catholicism that you would like us to address in a post? Pop us an email at: grand.admiral.thrawn333@gmail.com

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Movie Review: Juno

Greetings!  Welcome to the first of (hopefully) many movie reviews by Al+El.

My name is Elizabeth, and the movie I am reviewing today is Juno.


I’ve been eager to watch the movie Juno for a long time, ever since it first came out.  Although I was not allowed to see it at the time (with very good reason, which will be seen later), I knew lots of people who did, and over the years I’ve heard many and conflicting opinions of this movie.   Initially, I was surprised that the pro-abortion/liberal media didn’t persecute Juno, because of what I thought was its pro-life message.  After watching the movie, however, I can see how wrong my original impression was, and why the pro-abortion party would not make such a hype over this movie as they might over, say, Bella.   

Summary
Juno is not your everyday girl who finds herself in a situation which is, sad to say, something of an everyday occurrence in our culture:  she’s 16 years old, still in high school, and facing an unplanned pregnancy.  Confused and unsure, she confides in her best friend, Leah, who suggests a visit to the abortion clinic to “get rid of it”.  On her way inside the clinic, Juno spots a girl from her high school protesting outside the clinic.  The girl immediately attempts to change Juno’s mind, but nothing seems to get through to her until the girl squeaks desperately, “Your baby has fingernails!”  Puzzled by this new idea of her baby’s humanity, and turned off by the brashness of the lady at the front desk of the abortion clinic, Juno recants and decides to keep her baby.  She is, however, determined not to raise the baby herself, and thus sets off to find the perfect adoptive parents for her unborn child.


Reaction
My initial reaction to Juno was a wish that it wasn’t so crass, and possessed more charm.  In the uptake, Juno is rather a charming movie – it possesses unique and endearing characters, moments of dry humor, and a certain quirky-cutesy edge.  It is essentially the story from Juno’s perspective, that is, the perspective of a cynical, laid-back, witty, and confident teenager.   There is much to admire in her personality, much to love.  (Her pipe made me fall in love with her instantly, if only because I also am in possession of a pipe and chew it on occasion.)  She is an acute and unique individual, refreshingly original, and possessing a free and undaunted spirit.  In short, she is “an old soul”.  But what is sad and disappointing about her are those streaks of raunchy humor and disrespect – particularly for the older generation – that darkly color her otherwise sunny nature.  This is reflected in the film.  In context, a little taste of juvenile crudity is to be expected, but the amount of dirty humor presented to me was a bit shocking – all the more so because this was the way in which the filmmakers presented a story about the beautiful choice of life. 
The overall message of Juno is a negative one (and most likely the reason for its acceptance among the liberal side of the media): Juno fails to take her pregnancy as the price – or penalty – of her immoral behavior, and instead seems to flaunt her baby bulge with pride.  This is not so terrible in itself, but I think the crux of the problem lies in Juno’s angry, accusatory words to Paulie, her on-and-off boyfriend: “Do you regret that we did it?” (i.e., had sex).   What Juno is saying here is that she does not regret what they did, and she is mad at Paulie for not feeling the same way.  Perhaps we should consider the scene in which this encounter takes place.  Paulie has just told Juno that he has asked another girl out to the prom, and emotionally, Paulie and Juno seem to be drifting apart.  So is Juno merely feeling dumped by Paulie?  Are her built up frustrations and hormones from her pregnancy manifesting themselves?  Or do her words present a deeper insight into her character, and the character of the film?
It is surprising to me how many people (even good Catholics) seem to fail to look beyond the endearing charms of Juno and see how many things are disturbing about it.  (Don’t even try to pull that trite “Oh, it’s just a movie” excuse.)  The film is about serious occurrences, and the attitudes of its characters need to be considered.  Some of the most crucial points in the movie, as we saw in the last paragraph, revolve around Juno’s commentary.  At the end of the film, she tells the viewers that she and Paulie “got started early” – that is, growing up, having children together.  But the fact is that neither one of them grew up.   Juno didn’t learn anything from her unplanned pregnancy.  Instead, her final words suggest that she rather liked growing up early and entering into a “serious” relationship at 16.  (However, neither she nor Paulie mention the future possibility of marriage.)  Juno’s last bits of commentary suggest that she would do it all over again.  Let me just mention here that the only reason the whole thing happened is that Juno and Paulie got bored on a Friday night while they were hanging out.  How spontaneous – how immature.  And how sad.


So far, I have only mentioned Juno and Paulie.  What about the adults?
Unfortunately, the adults presented in Juno are in want of extreme character reform.  Juno’s father, Mac, hardly seems to know what’s going on in his daughter’s life; her stepmother, Bren, while presented as being uptight and no-nonsense, barely challenges Juno’s screwy behavior (although she is very supportive of Juno during her pregnancy – beautiful unconditional love!); the hopeful adoptive parents-to-be of Juno’s baby are, on the one side, insecure, and on the other side, “messing around” (or unfaithful), and both are hoping for the perfect child to fit their eggshell perfect life; and various other high school teachers and parents are made out to be flirting with the students, or silly to the point of being idiotic, or just plain juvenile.  Out of all these, Bren seems to be the most solid character, for although she is the stepmother of Juno, she seems to take better, firmer disciplinary action than Juno’s actual father (if you can really call it disciplinary).
Perhaps it is no wonder, then, that Juno has such an urge to be grown up, and yet is unwilling to let go of her immature habits – such as disrespect for her elders.  She is seriously lacking role models in her life.  However, there are moments of connection between Juno and some of the adults.  She has something of a heart-to-heart talk with her father Mac.  She develops a cautious friendship with Vanessa, the anxious but gentle prospective mother of Juno’s baby.  Her stepmother Bren supports her during her pregnancy with words of wisdom and prenatal vitamins.  During some of the connections, though, the bizarre attitudes of some of the characters and the filmmakers become apparent.  Juno’s friendship with Vanessa’s husband Mark – founded on a mutual love for punk rock and horror movies – takes a sour turn when Mark begins dissolutely falling for Juno and ultimately decides to leave Vanessa.  (Juno rejects him with horror, but in this lies another negative element.  Bren had warned Juno not to visit Mark alone so often, and Juno blew her off.)  At an earlier point, Juno is having an ultrasound done, and the technician makes an insensitive remark about teen mothers raising children themselves.  Bren responds indignantly and shuts the technician down, but one can’t help feeling during the scene that the filmmakers are merely making a bow to the pro-abortion party.
It seems apparent throughout Juno that the filmmakers want to please both sides: pro-abortion and pro-life.  They were afraid of making an overtly pro-life movie, so they made it pro-sex and pro-immaturity instead.  Attempting to produce a happy medium, they failed to fully satisfy both sides.  But perhaps this was their goal.


In conclusion…
…there are two major things wrong with this movie.  1): the flippant presentation of some of the most serious things in life (such as sex and abortion).  2): Juno’s half-adult/half-na├»ve take on it all.  We see lots of suggestive content, and lots of sexual implications, and Juno and her friends talking casually about it all. 
Sadly, it is all taken casually now.  Have sex, get pregnant, have an abortion (get rid of it), recycle.  Meantime, let’s go on with our lives as if nothing has happened.  The movie truly does present “a day in the life”, of a teenager.  But perhaps one of the movie’s good points lies in this, that it can present a somewhat positive message on human life in the womb to a desensitized generation who understand the crassness that is in front of them.  It’s gloomy to have to admit that.
Juno’s attitude, then, is probably not that much different from your average teenager.  High school kids seem to think that they’re mature enough to have sex, but when faced with other adult situations -- pregnancy, coping with annoying people, having a relationship -- they seem to fall back on their adolescence.  (In fact, not many adults seem to do a better job; but maybe this is because they acted this way when they were kids.)  The truth is, they are kids.  They’re not adults.  They’ve got so much life to live, so much to learn…why rush it? 
This is what irks me about people who say that Juno is all about Juno learning to grow up.  It’s not.  She has tried to grow up already, and it hasn’t worked.  Her youthfulness is so lovable.  It makes her react the way she does.  But the film’s overall message includes this element: it’s okay to “take a detour into adulthood”, as the Juno DVD synopsis says.  It’s especially okay if you’re a “cool, confident teenager” like Juno.  After it’s all over, you can get back on the road and continue merrily on your way.  There are no consequences for your actions.
In the real world, this is not okay, nor is it an easy thing to get over and forget.  It’s sad.  It impacts you for life, whether you believe it or not.  It’s unfortunate.  It’s unfortunate that Juno forces herself into an adult situation, because frankly, she is not ready for it.  She’s still a kid.  And until she has experience enough to change, that’s how she will remain.


--

Pax Christi,

Elizabeth

Friday, December 9, 2011

On Women Priests: Part Four

Finally, the last part is up!  Here's Part Four of my essay on women priests and O'Malley's PD article; here are Parts One, Two, and Three for your viewing pleasure if you missed them.


The article continues:


The Women's Ordination Committee, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for women priests, said it has 10,000 supporters on its mailing list, half of whom are dues-paying members. The committee estimates there are about 125 women priests in the United States.
The committee's director, Erin Hanna, said her organization does not ordain women, but there at least four groups that do.

One hundred and twenty-five women “priests?”  I’m torn between being depressed that there are so many and being glad that there are so few - does that even make sense?  I’m not sure which one it is.  Anyway, I would like to know just how these “four groups” go about “ordaining” women – ordination requires a bishop, after all, and any bishop who simulates ordination of women is reprimanded and/or excommunicated, as far as I know.  And besides, I thought that bishops had no authority?  In that case, there isn’t even a simulation of ordination by a bishop.

Ann Klonowski, 62, of Independence, was recently accepted into one of the groups, Roman Catholic Women Priests, to study for the priesthood. She expects to be ordained within two to three years.
"A lot of people say, 'This is ridiculous,' " said Klonowski who has a graduate degree in theology from John Carroll University. "Well, it might be, but there won't be any changes unless people stand up on their hind legs.
"I'm reconciled to be a voice in the desert. I don't have to worry about what the institutional church thinks of me. I have to worry about what God thinks of me."
Klonowski must prepare herself not only for the priesthood, but for the excommunication that the Catholic church says is automatic.

Two to three years?  Whatever happened to the requirement that priests need at the very least a four-year degree in Catholic philosophy, plus four more years studying theology?  Perhaps I’m jumping to conclusions here, but I think that this “two to three years” of education is going to be woefully inadequate – not to mention distorted, seeing as they have so many issues with Church authority and Her central teachings.  Yes, it is ridiculous – not only because of the heretical nature of this whole situation, but also because of the obviously woefully deficient education in Church theology and philosophy that they have received or will be receiving, which is never a good thing in any situation.

Moving on!  Ah yes, the whole “voice in the desert” nonsense.  It has a nice ring to it, what with the quoting from the Bible, and it evokes an image of them as the sole voice of Truth in a whirlwind of lies and injustice.  The problem here, however, is that she is simply letting herself be taken by that whirlwind of falsehood that she thinks she is standing up to.  As was already established earlier, she is going up against the Truth itself – the teaching of the Holy Spirit as passed on to us through the Magisterium – and she will never be able to change the Truth as given by God.  In this particular case, standing up to the “institutional church” and its infallible teachings is tantamount to standing up to Christ Himself – a situation no one should ever want to find themselves in.  The very fact that she is prepared to take the excommunication as an acceptable consequence of her actions only highlights the depth of her error.   For her, it seems that the excommunication means nothing, which makes her opinion of Church authority even clearer than it was before – if that was even possible.  But I'm beating a dead horse, really, so: moving on.

The Rev. Roy Bourgeois of Georgia, who has worked with Zeman, supports women priests and has participated in their ordinations. The church considers him excommunicated and he is facing dismissal by his religious order the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers.
The Maryknolls have repeatedly ordered him to recant his position on women priests, but Bourgeois has refused.
"I will not recant," he said in a recent telephone interview. "I will not lie.
"Who are we as men to say that our call to the priesthood is authentic, but God's call to women is not?" he added. "This movement of gender equality is rooted in justice. You can't stop this movement. It's like trying to stop the women's suffrage movement."

Oh, Mr. O’Malley, you’re really making me giggle here.  In the words of a commenter on the PD site: “Not a single (non-heretical) Catholic quoted in the article.  Good job, P-D!”  O’Malley can only find people who support women’s ordination in the fringes of Catholic liberalism; orthodoxy, which is the mark of true and faithful Catholicism, is firmly against his and Zeman’s beliefs and agenda.

On the subject of Father Roy Bourgeois: as you may have read already in the article by Jimmy Akin on the NCR, Bourgeois has consistently and steadfastly refused to adhere to his priestly vows, recognize his error, and recant; another obstinate and misguided soul to add to that sadly growing list.  Bourgeois’ comparison of women’s ordination to women’s suffrage is a pathetic and fruitless attempt to make the priesthood a right in the same way that voting is (and incidentally, it’s also a perfect example of a bad analogy, for the philosophically-minded reading this post); however, I believe we covered this one earlier with that helpful paragraph from the Catechism (1578).  His arguments for women’s ordination have all already been shot down with gruesome finality by the good Mr. Akin (here’s the link again, in case you didn’t get to it the first time), and I consider him to be exactly the same as Ms. Zeman here: completely wrongheaded and in dire need of our prayers for his soul.  I am reminded of that verse from the Gospel of Luke: 

“He said to his disciples, ‘Things that cause sin will inevitably come, but woe to the person through whom they occur.  It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin’” (cf. Lk 17:1-2).

I shudder to think how many well-meaning Catholics Bourgeois and Co. have misled with their rhetoric about equality and independent interpretation.  They certainly haven't helped when it comes to American Catholics, at least judging by the surveys that Mr. O'Malley cited.  That's not to say that they are the sole cause of the average American Catholic's views, but all the same, I find it hard to deny that they had no part in it at all.


I pray that Fr. Bourgeois and Ms. Zeman will come to see the truth before it is too late; in light of their obstinate refusals to cease their heretical and misleading activities, I think it's clear that only the grace of God can reach them now.  Please pray for all those misguided souls who have gone astray, that they may no longer spread division, strife, and misinformation among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.



And that's the end of this essay; I hope you at least found it to be informative and interesting.  In a similar vein, I'm planning on commenting about so-called "Catholic" politicians and whether or not they are true adherents to Church teaching in a later post - not too sure when, but it'll be sometime in the coming month, I should think.  In the meantime, thanks for reading!  Comments and thoughts are thoroughly encouraged and welcomed.

Pax Christi.

Friday, December 2, 2011

On Women Priests: Part Three

Hello again!  I'm back to post the third part of my article on women priests and Michael O'Malley's article in the Plain Dealer.  If you missed the first two pieces, here they are: Parts One and Two.  Again, as previously stated, all boldings are mine for the sake of emphasis.

O'Malley's article continues:

"We don't pledge allegiance to any bishop," said Zeman. "We pledge allegiance directly to God and to the people of God."
Zeman grew up in Gesu Parish in University Heights and graduated from Regina High School.
She has a degree in theology from the Jesuit-run Loyola University in Chicago.

The first thought that popped into my head here was: Oh, how profoundly Protestant.  Seriously!  This is the language of a Protestant, dressed up in a Catholic context.  Once again, our dear friend Barbara is ignoring one of the foundational aspects of Catholicism – the hierarchy of bishops as passed down by and through the apostles.  They serve as successors of the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ to go and preach in His name (the establishment of what is called the episcopate), and as dictated by that position of service are teachers, guides, and shepherds of the faithful.  The CCC reads:

Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church.  He instituted the Church.  He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal…” (874)

This is further expounded upon via Scripture: “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without a preacher?  And how can men preach unless they are sent?” (Rom 10:14-15).  Here we see why the Commissioning of the apostles is so important an event in the establishment of the Church.  The CCC further states:

No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: "Faith comes from what is heard [Rom 10:17]."  No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty ("the sacred power") to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a "sacrament" by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament. (875)

It certainly sounds to me like Zeman et al. are giving themselves “the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel.”  They certainly seem to deny that there are “ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ” (i.e. bishops), else they would not be denying the authority of the Church and Her bishops.

With regard to Zeman’s degree in theology from Loyola University, that doesn’t tell me much, except that her teachers must have done a woefully inadequate job of educating her on the precepts and teachings of the Church.  Either that, or she never took much of it to heart, a fact which is plainly manifest in her present behavior.  O’Malley here seems to be covertly arguing that because she has a degree in theology, she must know what she’s talking about.  Problematically for him, this leads one to an absurd conclusion: that all of the theologians and other people who also have degrees in theology and have come down on the Church’s side must be wrong, which in turn implies that a degree in theology doesn’t necessarily say much.  I think you know where I’m going with this.

"I am a Catholic," she said. "And no one's going to tell me I'm not."

I thought I would give this particular quote its own little treatment, because of the peculiar, absurd and silly nature of it.  “…no one’s going to tell me I’m not.”  Really?  Well then, any attempts to the contrary are pointless, of course.  Here’s one from me: “I’m the Duke of York, and no one’s going to tell me I’m not.”  Disagree with me?  Too bad, I say so and it’s final!  So there.

All jesting aside, there is some truth to what she says, if only in the immediate and superficial sense of the word.  She is certainly a Catholic, because “once a Catholic, always a Catholic,” as the saying goes: by virtue of our Catholic baptism, we are given an indelible mark that stays with us all throughout life.  But this is only a nominal title; there is no real truth to it in the deep, meaningful sense of the word, as established earlier in this piece.  One cannot say that one is a true, faithful Catholic and at the same time deny the central tenets of the Church.  It’s logically incoherent, given the true meaning and import of the words “faithful Catholic”; the combination of those words implies certain things which cannot be denied without contradicting the very words themselves.

In Chicago, Zeman works as a nondenominational chaplain in a hospital and performs sacramental services, including Mass, for a gay/lesbian group called Dignity Chicago.

This is another short commentary, but also important.  I find the denotation nondenominational intriguing; if she is so proud of standing up to ‘injustice,’ as she calls it, why not simply claim to be a Catholic ‘priest’ in her capacity as chaplain?  Odd.  Also, the fact that she performs “sacramental services” to a “gay/lesbian group” is very enlightening; given the fact that Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that she celebrates homosexual ‘marriage’ – yet another scandalous and perverse denial of direct Church teaching.  But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this anymore – it’s quite a trend with Zeman, after all.

Though Protestant denominations have been ordaining women for decades, Zeman said she would never consider joining one of them. "I'm not going to leave my church," she said. "It's who I am."
Traditionally, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has not recognized women priests. The institution argues that Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, therefore, women cannot be ordained.
But proponents of women priests say Jesus had women followers and women played vital roles, including leading faith communities, in the early church.
"This is murky history," said the Rev. Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "It's hard to prove anything one way or another."
But the apostle argument, he said, can be problematic. "They were all Jews, too," he said. "So do all priests have to be Jewish males? If that's the case, we have a real problem."

It sounds like Zeman’s only tangible tie to the Church is her emotional and lifelong connection with it, neither of which are necessarily pertinent.  If, as she says, the Church is “who she is,” why does she consistently and persistently deny essentially every claim to authority that it has?  I am led to wonder whether she even believes that the Church is the sole teacher of the whole Truth; I keep getting the impression that her decision to “stay” in the Church is based wholly on arbitrary and preferential grounds – something which I associate with Protestants, not Catholics.  Obviously, if the Church is wrong on women’s ordination (not to mention the authority of bishops), then She is not possessed of the whole Truth (because She’s obviously lying or mistaken about several important issues), so why remain in it?  Does Zeman even believe in Truth?  If so, of what import is it to her?  Just some thoughts.

Next!  Ah, here we go with the “hierarchy” thing again.  People who criticize the Church – like Mr. O’Malley here – like to emphasize the supposed disconnect between those bad, mean, misogynistic bishops and the poor, innocent laity who suffer under the arbitrary pronouncements of the hierarchy.  O’Malley here employs what might be called a straw man fallacy, wherein he presents the readers with a very watered-down explanation of the Church’s opposition to female ordination and then gives some (contextually, anyway) valid refutations of it.  The whole of his argument, however, is based on the weak proposition that “the institution argues that Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, therefore, women cannot be ordained.”

Well, way to oversimplify!  The Church’s reasons for teaching that women’s ordination is not possible are far more comprehensive and well-grounded than that admittedly spurious-sounding postulation.  See this wonderful article by Mr. Jimmy Akin of the National Catholic Register here, where he picks apart various arguments for women’s ordination as put forth by the obstinately heretical Fr. Roy Bourgeois (who is, funnily enough, mentioned later in O’Malley’s article).  For more information, I also recommend this excellent tract provided by Catholic Answers.  Needless to say, however, this is not the whole picture.  Christ specifically chose men as apostles, who in turn only chose men as successors, etc.  The argument is put forward that Jesus and his disciples only did this because of the patriarchal society of the time.  My response is: Christ was one of the most anti-societal-custom figures of that time, breaking all sorts of axiomatic rules and prejudices.  I refer you to the case of the Samaritan Woman at the well (cf. Jn 4:4-41), where Jesus does something absolutely unthinkable by the mores of that time: he a) approaches and speaks with a Samaritan woman, b) asks for a drink, and c) does so alone with her.  In the Jewish culture of the time, Samaritan women were considered to be "ritually impure"; Jews were "forbidden to drink from any vessel they had handled."  There are other relevant Scriptural examples to be had, but I'd rather not dredge up any more in the interest of space constraints; a reasonably quick perusal of the Gospels will yield results for the more curious here.

The Church teaches that just as men and women are different biologically, being suited to different roles, so too with spirituality.  A man cannot become pregnant; he is not meant to.  Likewise, a woman cannot become a priest; she is not meant to.  Each sex has different but complementary callings.  The priest is by virtue of his ordination wedded to the Church, Christ’s Bride; the nun is wedded to Christ in a similar fashion.  The priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) when he celebrates the Mass; a woman is fundamentally incapable of doing so, by virtue of her being a woman.  Male-only ordination is not an exclusion or discrimination of women, in the same way that motherhood is not an exclusion or discrimination of men; they are simply two different callings that suit the respective genders.  In this sense, equality is not equivalent in meaning to sameness, which is what Zeman and others like her seem to think.  Again, I refer you to Mr. Akin’s marvelous article that was mentioned previously; he puts it a bit more eloquently and comprehensively than I have.

With regard to the existence or nonexistence of females who operated in “vital roles” in the early Church: the language is needlessly vague, unless of course the vagueness is there due to lack of concrete information – in which case why are we using it as justification for a stance on an issue as important as this?  Regarding the Rev. Tom Reese, apparently he is an ardent member of the group Voice of the Faithful, which happens to be a spotty “Catholic” action group that covertly advocates for women priests (how ironic)and the end of priestly celibacy and provides links to explicitly dissident groups such as We Are Church and Call to Action.  In addition to this, many of its members are dissidents within the Church, leading to it being accused of being a “front organization for dissidents” – something that I happen to agree with – and it also calls for radical restructuring of the Church to make it more akin to a democracy.  Furthermore, he was editor of the “Catholic” magazine America for several years – a magazine which was and is known for its criticism of and opposition to Church authority and teaching.  Even ignoring these, his comments on the question of the apostles remains vague and inconclusive, opting instead to use a silly and irrelevant argument based on their ethnicity.

The fourth - and last - part of this series will be up in a few days.  It touches on Zeman's silly but disturbing "Here I stand, I can do no other" stance, some thoughts on the educational qualifications of these "priestesses," and the stubbornly heretical Fr. Roy Bourgeois.  I hope you enjoyed this part (and the others) and I of course encourage you to keep reading and give me your thoughts on it all.