Talk:Michele Birch Conery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.

If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

(section heading added by Veledan • Talk ^{+ new})

[edit] POV Discussion

The irresponsibly propagandistic "corrections" made by Veledan clearly side with the magisterial authorities, and erase the fact that some Catholics do not agree that the ordinations were invalid. A distinction must be made between illicit and invalid in Catholic sacramental theology. A sacrament is invalid when there is something wrong with how the ceremony is conducted. In this case, since the Vatican believes that they have "no authority" to ordain women (how humble of them--on no other occasion have I read a Vatican document which disclaimed authority!) the sacrament of ordination somehow didn't "take". The Anglican Church, on the other hand, would recognise the ordinations, since they recognise both Catholic orders and those of women. Do not turn wikipedia into a soapbox--for the Roman Hierarchy or anyone else. Carolynparrishfan 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended! And sorry I couldn't find a sufficiently forceful quote from Rev Conery to balance those of her detractors in an article whose raison d'etre is conflicting opinion. I arrived here while working on disambiguating Vatican, but I ended up attempting to flesh out what I thought was a dodgy article. I thought the implicit assumption in the first sentence of your version that the ordination had taken place was misleading: whether Anglicans or anybody else thinks it was valid seemed irrelevant when the notable point at issue is that Rev Conery is claiming a Roman Catholic ordination. And I'm sorry to speak so bluntly, but your fourth and final sentence regarding the excommunication of the women was simply false — the 2002 ordinations were indeed followed by excommunication (because they were conferred by someone the Holy See recognised as a bishop, even though he had been consecrated by a schismatic sect), but the Vatican has accorded no such importance to July's events.

I won't deny I have a POV, but I honestly wasn't trying to be a dick. Please reword the things you think I said badly, add your Anglican support, quote your catholics who think the ordinations were illicit rather than invalid, replace the quote from Rev Conery with a better one, and remove your NPOV tag, and I'll support your edits. Peace, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 01:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I have added categories representing the claimed status. I am sure Roman Catholics is appropriate for she was a Roman Catholics before that date, though she might have since been excommunicated. Christian Clergy, and Christian Ordination should apply in any event. I do not intend to become involved in a discussion whether Roman Catholic Priests applies. DGG 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)