Let's see, the NYT has now decided that one of it's employees can and should examine the Word of God to see if it is Ethical? I have forgotten much of formal ethics, but I always believed that ethics and morals, in essence, derived from God and his Word. The crazies at the NYT get so tied up in their wacky lefty philosophy they forget PHIL 101.

This is like a Penthouse letter: it's so ridiculous that I find it hard to see how it could be genuine. Consider:

• Was there no priest (he's a seminarian) nearby who was trained in philosophy? If so, why would he bring his ethical concerns to a newspaper?
  • If you answer, "because he already knew what the priest's answer would be," then you're forced to admit that he's only looking to confirm an answer he already believes.
• Perhaps the seminarian believed that the New York Times retains superior philosophers ... who are put to use in the Sunday magazine.
• The Catholic university he attends: surely there's a philosophy department?
• The seminarian is supposedly wrestling with the idea that his very existence is a form of discrimination, and he addresses this existential struggle ... through a letter to the New York Times?

This is ridiculous. Speaking as a former seminarian, however, I've seen such nonsense before. There's only three possibilities here:

1. The seminarian is purely fictitious and the magazine is trying to score a point against all-male priesthood. (By the way, this gets my vote. I suspect some non-seminarian at the university is just trying to stir up trouble. I doubt this was written by a real seminarian. But even if it was ... )
2. The seminarian is so liberal and idealistic that he thinks he's scoring a point - against his own existence.
3. The seminarian is genuinely struggling, but instead of bringing his soul to his superiors, he brings it to the New York Times. What, then, does his vow of obedience mean? (He said he was in a religious order; which means he must take a vow of obedience.)

When I was in the Jesuits, this kind of stunt would just infuriate me. There's a fundamental dishonesty here: either the letter itself is a fake, or the letter is clearly a political "statement" masked behind a "question." Either way, for the "ethicist" at the New York Times to present it as a genuine question is itself hardly ethical. The ethicist contradicts his own credentials.

I still can't get over this fraud's advise to the nurse-midwife to falsify a legal document.  His advise could cost the nurse-midwife her livlihood and her freedom.  And why?  So that someone else can continue breaking those laws this freak disagrees with.  I'd take this guys 'ethics' serious when he, himself, gives up his livelihood and goes to jail to enable someone else's criminal behavior.  Until he actually puts his own a$$ on the line he's not a serious person.  At this point he's just a superficial poseur who merely talks the talk.  he would change his tune for the sake of convience.

As a Catholic, I'm so sick of this stuff. 

Have these "ethicists" and the various and sundry feminist or equality groups out there ever heard of religious freedom?  Are they not aware that, for example, the Episcopale Church, freely allows women to be priestesses?  Or that lots of other denominations allow women to be pastors or ministers?

And that those denominations do so of their own free will and based on their interpretation of theology.

How would this ethicist like it if traditionalist groups rose up in the Episcopal Church, or the ELCA, and demanding women be stripped of the ability to be priests because this small group of dissenters didn't agree with it?  Wouldn't the ethicist advise that the dissenters get packing?

The Catholic Church has every right to ordain only men as priests because we believe that's how Jesus Christ Himself wanted it to be.  Why is it we Catholics must always be the ones to compromise or ignore the tenents of our faith because some thin-skinned theological morons don't feel affirmed or good about themselves?  On priests, on contraception, on marriage, on abortion - it's always the Catholic Church that's expected - nay, ORDERED - to "get with the times" and do what liberals want to do.    

When it's none of their damned business.  If we wanted to ordain goats instead of women, that's our choice.  You don't have to agree with it; you don't have to like it.  But you
don't have the right to whine and moan about how "unfair" it is when
you're perfectly free to plant your flag in greener pastures. And they clearly don't understand there are lots of roles for women within the Church - roles that garner a great deal of responsibility and leadership.

What they hope for is that women will get in, allow contraception and abortion and gay marriage, adopt the "I'm Okay, You're Okay" theology, and remake the Catholic Church to look like the Episcopalians, or Anglicans, or one of the ever-growing number of Protestant denominations that break off whenever there's a theological disagreement.  Numbers in liberal churches decline (including liberal Catholic parishes), and the Episcopal Church is going through what can safely be described as a schism over such issues, but this is what the media want us to emulate.  The ultimate goal is the total destruction of religion and they're threatened by a Church that won't change because pop culture says it should, and alarmed that parishes, orders, and diocese that are conservative and orthodox see greater numbers and thrive.

Also, one has to wonder if this letter wasn't a plant.  The "name withheld" at the end of the letter, coupled with the notion that someone entering the seminary, if serious about his vocation, would even for a second consider the stupidity of the arguments behind "women priests" or write to an "ethicist" who is really more of a gossip columnist, sends up a red flag.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam