There are those in the Church who seem to have a shocking ability to believe that applying a particular "nomen" to something can change the "natura" of something.
I'm a little confused. Didn't the current pope just rule against ever having female deacons? Why are they wasting time on this? Whatever they come up with (i.e. wordsmithing magic), there will be those that will never settle for anything less than what they want (i.e. female deacons and female priests). It's just setting up those groups for endless disappointment, resentment, animosity, etc. And it leaves the rest wondering what is going on and questioning the purpose of it all. Is that the vision of this form of synodality???
Pope Francis has already signed the Document on Human Fraternity which proclaims that all religions are willed by God - thus flatly contradicting previous Catholic teaching as well as basic logic and sanity. He has declared the death penalty inadmissible (whatever that means) thus contradicting 2,000 years of Church teaching and practice. Check out Signor Bugatti, the Papal States executioner. Anything goes. The advocates of women priests sense that they just have to keep pushing - 10, 20, 50 years, whatever.
“Some theologians and bishops have argued that, since deacons do not have the power of sacramental ministry beyond those common to all the faithful, conferring diaconal ordination on women would not challenge directly the teaching on the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone.”
I would disagree with such theologians and bishops. A deacon, permanent or transitional, is an ORDINARY minister of the sacraments of baptism and holy matrimony, meaning that he officiates at those sacraments in virtue of his office, as a member of the clergy. He also administers the Holy Eucharist, particularly the Precious Blood, as an ordinary minister of the sacrament, by virtue of his ordination to the diaconate. When a layperson is deputed (for a limited time period and for a specific place of ministry) to do these things in the name of the Church out of pastoral exigency, he or she is doing so as an EXTRAORDINARY minister of the sacrament, i.e., the use of EMHCs for the distribution of Holy Communion.
Right. Deacons are also broadly empowered to bless in the name of the Church, which laypeople aren't allowed to do at all. In addition, the Exultet in the Easter Vigil - a very important liturgical song - is proper to the Deacon. The Exultet references the Levitical Priesthood, which is the Old Testament precursor of the diaconate.
Not exactly. There are instances in which laymen are empowered to bless in the name of the Church. As examples: the blessing of an Advent wreath, a Christmas manger or Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, and throats on St. Blaise’s Day. Deacons do not confer any sacrament that a layman cannot validly confer (i.e. Baptism and Marriage). Whether ordinary or extraordinary, the power to do so is no different.
However, I do think that the quote about ordaining women deacons not challenging the teaching is an irrational conclusion.
The rules are Matthew 5, or in this particular case that if I want to hit someone over the head with a verse then I should start reading there until I am no longer angry (or, if necessary, start over again in the Latin/Greek facing-page New Testament that I found in a used bookstore).
I think the reason there has been little or no discussion regarding other models of deaconess beyond that of sacramental is because it already exists from a practical standpoint. Women, at least in the West, hold very high positions in the Church including positions such as diocesan chancellor. Positions not open to women are not open to non-ordained men either. One could argue that there should be a defined ministry regarding women in the Church, but again there is no need. The defined ministries are not distinguished with regard to men and women, but cleric or lay. The formal ministries open to men such as catechist are open to women. Just as non-ordained men in these roles are not called deacons, women would not be deaconesses. If the term deaconess were to be used it would only cause confusion as it would indicate through its language ordained ministry. The discussion regarding deaconesses is not one of the role of women in the Church, the positions they may hold and work they may do; it is fundamentally a discussion concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders - hence, why the debate has focused there.
In times past it was a given that men and women are different and have different gifts, ministries and roles. In those times a word like deaconess would sufficiently differentiate with deacon simply because it's feminine.
In todays confused world things are different - to put it mildly. In a world where many people believe that some women have a penis, you simply can't use two words differentiated only by masculine/feminine suffixes and expect people to realize that two very different ontological realities being discussed.
I think many of the prelates and so called theologians pushing this know this perfectly well. If they can change the realities on the ground, theology will follow. Or so the thinking goes.
"Positions not open to women are not open to non-ordained men either."
Homilies. Deacons -- men, often married, who won't usually become priests -- may deliver a homily at Mass.
I am opposed to women on the altar, serving as a deacon does. However, I am curious about a woman delivering a homily after undergoing training. As the article makes clear, other options for hearing from women with their different perspective is shut down because some are angling for women priests, which won't happen.
I have no desire to be a homilist. However, every now and then I'm curious what a woman would say about the readings, specifically a woman who has given birth. I've heard plenty of deacons speak from their perspectives as husbands. I'd like to hear from a mother once and a while. We don't have the grace of Orders, but we've been granted other graces.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent women from speaking about Scripture. They do so at conferences and on youtube. Women frequently teach religious ed classes. Female theologians have written Scripture commentaries (not to mention taught in seminaries). Mothers in particular are called to give religious instruction to their children, a grace priests generally do not receive.
Not during Mass. This is straight out of St. Paul's letters.
You can ask women who have given birth what they have to say about the readings any time. Women write and whole books of scripture reflections, have podcasts, and do speeches. Women are not prohibited from speaking or teaching about these things and some make a living at it. But praching a homily at Mass is reserved for ordained clergy.
What exactly would be the point of having "non-sacramental deaconesses?" Women can already take on the full range of lay apostolates in the Church. Women can already lead all sorts of schools, groups and other Catholic organizations. Women can already be consecrated, whether in religious institutes, lay institutes, societies of apostolic life, or in consecrated single life. Women already can have the exalted titles of mother and wife, the first teachers of children, the model of Holy Mother Church for the family and an image of the Church for the world. What would be added by throwing in the title "deaconess" to some sub-group of women? What would distinguish deaconesses from other women in the Church? What could these "non-sacramental deaconesses" do that faithful Catholic women cannot do now? It seems to me that the only effect would be to cause confusion as many, perhaps most, people would take it that "non sacramental deaconesses" would be a precursor to ordained deaconesses and then to ordained priestesses.
"What would distinguish deaconesses from other women in the Church? What could these "non-sacramental deaconesses" do that faithful Catholic women cannot do now?"
I respectfully suggest that a role exists for women who receive training to deliver a homily during Mass.
Not in your lifetime. Fr. Moore pointed out above that preaching is about the grace of ordination, not the training. So a woman with the training cannot preach at Mass. Just as I, a non-ordained man, cannot preach at Mass.
I think one gap in the roles available to women is in fact in single consecrated life, which is currently restricted to more or less actual virgins (with some exceptions, I believe, for rape).
I don’t think the non-sacramental deaconess is necessarily the right way to fill that gap, but I do think there *is* a gap.
This debate will never happen for one simple reason; the advocates for female "deacons" are not interested, and will not settle for anything less than women's ordination, at least to the diaconate. Their tactics directly mirror the debate on gay "marriage" in the U.S. and other western countries. Advocates repeatedly shot down any attempt at a compromise for something like "civil unions" and insisted on their unions being fully recognized as "marriages." Offering something like a non-ordained "deaconess" ministry would only be viewed as an insult and would offend advocates more than just telling them "no" altogether.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. We had non-ordained deaconesses. The LCMS also has a pretty firm commitment to a male only clergy and traditional gender roles.
But I highly doubt the people who want deaconesses are interested in emulating the LCMS.
When I first decided to become Catholic, two RCIA coordinators - both liberal 60-something women who did not hide their support for women's ordination - openly rejected me after asking whether I was LCMS or ELCA and finding out I was the former. I told them about Lutheran deaconesses and... yeah they were not interested, LOL.
(The happy epilogue to this is that 20 years later both parishes now are very orthodox and have regular EF masses in addition to beautiful NO masses, all packed with large young families.)
1. If "deacons do not have the power of sacramental ministry beyond those common to all the faithful", then why waste time ordaining women? (That might be convincing to someone that has some kind of emotional problem with women.)
2. Anyone, man, woman, or child, that demands ordination as a right is immediately disqualified. (In my opinion.)
3. I, and many others, should be happy that I have no authority to decided such matters. :-)
That this is still a topic at all is so tiresome. It will never happen. It can't happen. It can't happen just like the Church can't say "God is four persons". These people who want this need to understand this theologically. And if they won't listen with hardened hearts, they should go seek a church that has female ordinations if they think that's truth.
If they went to another church they would get "ordinations," not Ordinations. Unless they went to Orthodoxy, where they would probably have less traction than they do in Catholicism.
While many say that diaconal ordination does not confer “sacramental ministry beyond those common to all the faithful” it does confer sacramental grace for this Order.
Deacons are given a “character” (though not a priestly one given to priests or bishop) and a type of power of grace to fulfill their ministry. They are conformed to the ikon of Christ the Servant.
The idea that there is one Sacrament of Holy Orders with “grades” or “ranks” should mean that if one is ordained a deacon he can be admitted to the other “grades” or “ranks.” This is not currently reality.
Since there is little evidence in the West of what female deacons actually did (other than assist in baptisms of women) and no existent rite for their formal inauguration I’m not sure what the point would be in either “instituting” them or “ordaining” them.
In the East, the existent writings of the Fathers and the Rite of Ordination of a Deaconess clearly shows there was a greater role and gift of sacramental grace give to these ministers.
This is mainly demonstrated by the parallelism of the rite for men and women and the fact that the woman was also ordained in and at the altar, not outside of it (as were those in the minor Orders).
Given the state of the Latin Church today
too many people both progressives and conservatives see diaconal Ordination as still a step to the priesthood.
It is and it isn’t; some men are ordained as “vocational” deacons and some are ordained as “transitional” deacons.
The RCC needs to figure out if there are two separate forms of grace given in one and the same Order. (There can’t be)
Just because one is ordained a deacon does not make him eligible for priestly Ordination in the Church.
Bisbee, if a married permanent deacon’s wife dies, he may not remarry if he wants to remain in active ministry, and, should he so desire, he can be considered as a candidate for ordination to the priesthood. This is because of the “order” of the sacraments: married men can be ordained, but once ordained, a man cannot marry. This is true also for our Orthodox brothers & sisters, who only require their Bishops to be celibate.
So true. Celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite is church discipline, not doctrine. We have all the former married Protestant pastors of various sorts who have been ordained under the "Pastoral Provision." They, too, understand that in seeking ordination as Catholic priests, they are no longer free to marry.
If you think unordained deaconesses are cool, just imagine the incredible good that an unordained woman with none of the privileges, prerogatives, or powers of the pope could do for the Church, just by behaving the title popess bestowed upon her! She could wear an all-white pant suit and wave to crowds from her popessmobile and give confusing answers during airplane interviews! This is what the Church needs! Popess now! Popess now!
I heard about pretty far-reaching discussions between the French bishops and a rather large of women who had discerned a call as diaconesses which effectively did not include ordination, but rather a particular way of life in the diocesan Church, including the praying of the Liturgy of the Hours and service. I would prepare to be surprised on this issue.
That’s interesting. Does the LCMS have any semblance of religious life? Communities of vowed celibate men or women? I would be surprised, on account of Luther’s spirited rejection of it.
People should loudly heckle Sr. Becquart wherever she goes. These folks are slimy, conniving, sneaky, plotting persons who know they can get away with this vague and intentionally-veiled language and can count on *you* faithful to be accept whatever they say without any repercussion, even as they lie to you and quibble their way into implementing their heterodox reforms step-by-step in the “long con.”
People need to start openly jeering and heckling these folks everywhere they go. Make it known that we see through their veneers, and that we know exactly what they’re doing; and that even if Francis and curial figures won’t give them the boot, they’ll at least be (rightly) derided everywhere they set foot in public.
Public shaming is a long-established recourse in Christendom for those who remain publicly obstinate.
There are those in the Church who seem to have a shocking ability to believe that applying a particular "nomen" to something can change the "natura" of something.
I'm a little confused. Didn't the current pope just rule against ever having female deacons? Why are they wasting time on this? Whatever they come up with (i.e. wordsmithing magic), there will be those that will never settle for anything less than what they want (i.e. female deacons and female priests). It's just setting up those groups for endless disappointment, resentment, animosity, etc. And it leaves the rest wondering what is going on and questioning the purpose of it all. Is that the vision of this form of synodality???
Pope Francis has already signed the Document on Human Fraternity which proclaims that all religions are willed by God - thus flatly contradicting previous Catholic teaching as well as basic logic and sanity. He has declared the death penalty inadmissible (whatever that means) thus contradicting 2,000 years of Church teaching and practice. Check out Signor Bugatti, the Papal States executioner. Anything goes. The advocates of women priests sense that they just have to keep pushing - 10, 20, 50 years, whatever.
“Some theologians and bishops have argued that, since deacons do not have the power of sacramental ministry beyond those common to all the faithful, conferring diaconal ordination on women would not challenge directly the teaching on the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone.”
I would disagree with such theologians and bishops. A deacon, permanent or transitional, is an ORDINARY minister of the sacraments of baptism and holy matrimony, meaning that he officiates at those sacraments in virtue of his office, as a member of the clergy. He also administers the Holy Eucharist, particularly the Precious Blood, as an ordinary minister of the sacrament, by virtue of his ordination to the diaconate. When a layperson is deputed (for a limited time period and for a specific place of ministry) to do these things in the name of the Church out of pastoral exigency, he or she is doing so as an EXTRAORDINARY minister of the sacrament, i.e., the use of EMHCs for the distribution of Holy Communion.
Right. Deacons are also broadly empowered to bless in the name of the Church, which laypeople aren't allowed to do at all. In addition, the Exultet in the Easter Vigil - a very important liturgical song - is proper to the Deacon. The Exultet references the Levitical Priesthood, which is the Old Testament precursor of the diaconate.
Not exactly. There are instances in which laymen are empowered to bless in the name of the Church. As examples: the blessing of an Advent wreath, a Christmas manger or Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, and throats on St. Blaise’s Day. Deacons do not confer any sacrament that a layman cannot validly confer (i.e. Baptism and Marriage). Whether ordinary or extraordinary, the power to do so is no different.
However, I do think that the quote about ordaining women deacons not challenging the teaching is an irrational conclusion.
> "emphasize this diversity with further decentralization"
The drinking game that I am currently playing requires that I pause here to read
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/17?21 ff.
Please advise as to the rules of this game, and recommended beverage :D
The rules are Matthew 5, or in this particular case that if I want to hit someone over the head with a verse then I should start reading there until I am no longer angry (or, if necessary, start over again in the Latin/Greek facing-page New Testament that I found in a used bookstore).
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/7?37 bottoms up
An edifying game, even without a gin and watermelon smoothie :)
This is fantastic. I'm playing.
Pros: more Scripture, less anger, and lots of opportunities to mispronounce incomprehensible (to me) Greek.
Cons: No beverage?
Like the seasick recruiters in The Right Stuff ( https://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/right-stuff-the/quote_54324.html ) I should probably also mention that it is very dangerous.
Dangerous?!? But... highest priority...
Definitely count me in. As long as I don't have to be a seasick recruiter.
Bridget this, and for many other reasons, is why you are one of my favorite commenters on the Pillar. :-)
I think the reason there has been little or no discussion regarding other models of deaconess beyond that of sacramental is because it already exists from a practical standpoint. Women, at least in the West, hold very high positions in the Church including positions such as diocesan chancellor. Positions not open to women are not open to non-ordained men either. One could argue that there should be a defined ministry regarding women in the Church, but again there is no need. The defined ministries are not distinguished with regard to men and women, but cleric or lay. The formal ministries open to men such as catechist are open to women. Just as non-ordained men in these roles are not called deacons, women would not be deaconesses. If the term deaconess were to be used it would only cause confusion as it would indicate through its language ordained ministry. The discussion regarding deaconesses is not one of the role of women in the Church, the positions they may hold and work they may do; it is fundamentally a discussion concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders - hence, why the debate has focused there.
Between you and Fr. Edward Horkan, there's not much left to say.
In times past it was a given that men and women are different and have different gifts, ministries and roles. In those times a word like deaconess would sufficiently differentiate with deacon simply because it's feminine.
In todays confused world things are different - to put it mildly. In a world where many people believe that some women have a penis, you simply can't use two words differentiated only by masculine/feminine suffixes and expect people to realize that two very different ontological realities being discussed.
I think many of the prelates and so called theologians pushing this know this perfectly well. If they can change the realities on the ground, theology will follow. Or so the thinking goes.
"Positions not open to women are not open to non-ordained men either."
Homilies. Deacons -- men, often married, who won't usually become priests -- may deliver a homily at Mass.
I am opposed to women on the altar, serving as a deacon does. However, I am curious about a woman delivering a homily after undergoing training. As the article makes clear, other options for hearing from women with their different perspective is shut down because some are angling for women priests, which won't happen.
Deacons are ordained men. The homily is more about the grace of Orders than the training.
I have no desire to be a homilist. However, every now and then I'm curious what a woman would say about the readings, specifically a woman who has given birth. I've heard plenty of deacons speak from their perspectives as husbands. I'd like to hear from a mother once and a while. We don't have the grace of Orders, but we've been granted other graces.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent women from speaking about Scripture. They do so at conferences and on youtube. Women frequently teach religious ed classes. Female theologians have written Scripture commentaries (not to mention taught in seminaries). Mothers in particular are called to give religious instruction to their children, a grace priests generally do not receive.
Not during Mass. This is straight out of St. Paul's letters.
You can ask women who have given birth what they have to say about the readings any time. Women write and whole books of scripture reflections, have podcasts, and do speeches. Women are not prohibited from speaking or teaching about these things and some make a living at it. But praching a homily at Mass is reserved for ordained clergy.
What exactly would be the point of having "non-sacramental deaconesses?" Women can already take on the full range of lay apostolates in the Church. Women can already lead all sorts of schools, groups and other Catholic organizations. Women can already be consecrated, whether in religious institutes, lay institutes, societies of apostolic life, or in consecrated single life. Women already can have the exalted titles of mother and wife, the first teachers of children, the model of Holy Mother Church for the family and an image of the Church for the world. What would be added by throwing in the title "deaconess" to some sub-group of women? What would distinguish deaconesses from other women in the Church? What could these "non-sacramental deaconesses" do that faithful Catholic women cannot do now? It seems to me that the only effect would be to cause confusion as many, perhaps most, people would take it that "non sacramental deaconesses" would be a precursor to ordained deaconesses and then to ordained priestesses.
"What would distinguish deaconesses from other women in the Church? What could these "non-sacramental deaconesses" do that faithful Catholic women cannot do now?"
I respectfully suggest that a role exists for women who receive training to deliver a homily during Mass.
The thin edge of another wedge.
Not in your lifetime. Fr. Moore pointed out above that preaching is about the grace of ordination, not the training. So a woman with the training cannot preach at Mass. Just as I, a non-ordained man, cannot preach at Mass.
EDIT: grammar
It does not, because only ordained clergy can deliver homilies.
It's a power-hungry side of the 'faithful' who want to virtue signal and "decentralize," as the sister said in her interview. Sad.
I think one gap in the roles available to women is in fact in single consecrated life, which is currently restricted to more or less actual virgins (with some exceptions, I believe, for rape).
I don’t think the non-sacramental deaconess is necessarily the right way to fill that gap, but I do think there *is* a gap.
Are you imagining something like the early Church's order of widows?
Yes exactly.
This debate will never happen for one simple reason; the advocates for female "deacons" are not interested, and will not settle for anything less than women's ordination, at least to the diaconate. Their tactics directly mirror the debate on gay "marriage" in the U.S. and other western countries. Advocates repeatedly shot down any attempt at a compromise for something like "civil unions" and insisted on their unions being fully recognized as "marriages." Offering something like a non-ordained "deaconess" ministry would only be viewed as an insult and would offend advocates more than just telling them "no" altogether.
This is what I think, too.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. We had non-ordained deaconesses. The LCMS also has a pretty firm commitment to a male only clergy and traditional gender roles.
But I highly doubt the people who want deaconesses are interested in emulating the LCMS.
When I first decided to become Catholic, two RCIA coordinators - both liberal 60-something women who did not hide their support for women's ordination - openly rejected me after asking whether I was LCMS or ELCA and finding out I was the former. I told them about Lutheran deaconesses and... yeah they were not interested, LOL.
(The happy epilogue to this is that 20 years later both parishes now are very orthodox and have regular EF masses in addition to beautiful NO masses, all packed with large young families.)
1. If "deacons do not have the power of sacramental ministry beyond those common to all the faithful", then why waste time ordaining women? (That might be convincing to someone that has some kind of emotional problem with women.)
2. Anyone, man, woman, or child, that demands ordination as a right is immediately disqualified. (In my opinion.)
3. I, and many others, should be happy that I have no authority to decided such matters. :-)
That this is still a topic at all is so tiresome. It will never happen. It can't happen. It can't happen just like the Church can't say "God is four persons". These people who want this need to understand this theologically. And if they won't listen with hardened hearts, they should go seek a church that has female ordinations if they think that's truth.
If they went to another church they would get "ordinations," not Ordinations. Unless they went to Orthodoxy, where they would probably have less traction than they do in Catholicism.
Hm. So there is great disagreement on a particular issue and that is a reason why we should permit a practice somewhere but not everywhere.
Nope, can't see any way that'll get abused or applied to any other divisive issue.
While many say that diaconal ordination does not confer “sacramental ministry beyond those common to all the faithful” it does confer sacramental grace for this Order.
Deacons are given a “character” (though not a priestly one given to priests or bishop) and a type of power of grace to fulfill their ministry. They are conformed to the ikon of Christ the Servant.
The idea that there is one Sacrament of Holy Orders with “grades” or “ranks” should mean that if one is ordained a deacon he can be admitted to the other “grades” or “ranks.” This is not currently reality.
Since there is little evidence in the West of what female deacons actually did (other than assist in baptisms of women) and no existent rite for their formal inauguration I’m not sure what the point would be in either “instituting” them or “ordaining” them.
In the East, the existent writings of the Fathers and the Rite of Ordination of a Deaconess clearly shows there was a greater role and gift of sacramental grace give to these ministers.
This is mainly demonstrated by the parallelism of the rite for men and women and the fact that the woman was also ordained in and at the altar, not outside of it (as were those in the minor Orders).
Given the state of the Latin Church today
too many people both progressives and conservatives see diaconal Ordination as still a step to the priesthood.
It is and it isn’t; some men are ordained as “vocational” deacons and some are ordained as “transitional” deacons.
The RCC needs to figure out if there are two separate forms of grace given in one and the same Order. (There can’t be)
Just because one is ordained a deacon does not make him eligible for priestly Ordination in the Church.
Celibacy plays a great role in this.
Bisbee, if a married permanent deacon’s wife dies, he may not remarry if he wants to remain in active ministry, and, should he so desire, he can be considered as a candidate for ordination to the priesthood. This is because of the “order” of the sacraments: married men can be ordained, but once ordained, a man cannot marry. This is true also for our Orthodox brothers & sisters, who only require their Bishops to be celibate.
Yes, that is the current way.
But there could be the option of "viri probati" deacons ordained to the priesthood.
That's different thing though.
So true. Celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite is church discipline, not doctrine. We have all the former married Protestant pastors of various sorts who have been ordained under the "Pastoral Provision." They, too, understand that in seeking ordination as Catholic priests, they are no longer free to marry.
If you think unordained deaconesses are cool, just imagine the incredible good that an unordained woman with none of the privileges, prerogatives, or powers of the pope could do for the Church, just by behaving the title popess bestowed upon her! She could wear an all-white pant suit and wave to crowds from her popessmobile and give confusing answers during airplane interviews! This is what the Church needs! Popess now! Popess now!
😂
The camel continues trying to get its nose under the tent.
I heard about pretty far-reaching discussions between the French bishops and a rather large of women who had discerned a call as diaconesses which effectively did not include ordination, but rather a particular way of life in the diocesan Church, including the praying of the Liturgy of the Hours and service. I would prepare to be surprised on this issue.
Missouri Synod Lutherans have non-ordained deaconesses and a very firm commitment to male-only ordination and liturgical roles.
Why does no one in the Catholic Church think to ask them about it?
That’s interesting. Does the LCMS have any semblance of religious life? Communities of vowed celibate men or women? I would be surprised, on account of Luther’s spirited rejection of it.
People should loudly heckle Sr. Becquart wherever she goes. These folks are slimy, conniving, sneaky, plotting persons who know they can get away with this vague and intentionally-veiled language and can count on *you* faithful to be accept whatever they say without any repercussion, even as they lie to you and quibble their way into implementing their heterodox reforms step-by-step in the “long con.”
People need to start openly jeering and heckling these folks everywhere they go. Make it known that we see through their veneers, and that we know exactly what they’re doing; and that even if Francis and curial figures won’t give them the boot, they’ll at least be (rightly) derided everywhere they set foot in public.
Public shaming is a long-established recourse in Christendom for those who remain publicly obstinate.
I think "polite but firm rejection" is a more strategic method - and unlike heckling, it won't create any "media martyrs."
> People need to start openly jeering and heckling these folks everywhere they go.
hm. The drinking game that I am currently playing requires that I pause here and read https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/13?34 ff.