[InterestedQuestioner]

Dear Editor,

I appreciate the news coverage provided by your agency, and I am writing to report what appears to be an inaccuracy in a recent article. Regarding the article, "French Catholic woman illicitly ordained," of July 2nd, I'm not an attorney, but I believe it is inaccurate to say that she was illicitly ordained. I don't think there was anything illicit about the event: it was carried out outside the Roman Catholic Church, by non-Catholics, and I don't think it can accurately be labeled as illicit, although it might qualify as being invalid.

Think of it this way, if you were to ask the people involved, "for what Church was this person ordained?” you would probably get a variety of somewhat non-descript answers, which might include the mention of a "universal church." Regardless of the answer, however, it is certain that said church has no laws or mechanisms by which this event could be labeled as "illicit." The Catholic woman involved with this event is being “ordained” to a Church that does not exist, and as such, there is no organization that can in fact rule the event to be illicit. That is to say, it is not contrary to the laws of any organization or society, as it took place outside of any organized religion of which I am aware, and was no doubt in keeping with the civil laws of France.

I think it would be truer and more accurate to represent the event as a mock ordination staged as a political protest against Catholic doctrine, and to note that it was lead by a group of non-Catholics and involved one allegedly Catholic woman. It seems to me that this would be a much more straightforward presentation of the facts. As for the women leading the event, although they are not listed in the article, I suspect that quick search on the internet will lead you will find that they were excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church a number of years ago.

Thank you for your time.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Although this article was an improvement over the Reuters article of June 7th, it nonetheless struck me as misleading, and I sent the above comments to the editor. Would be interested in any thoughts about this approach.

[TaxachusettsMan]

To use an example even the theologian-gym teacher Genevieve Beney (and MAYBE the people at Reuters) MIGHT be able to understand:

It's like trying to consecrate a potato chip.

No can do.

[TheGeezer]

Your letter, especially the last paragraph, accurately captures nuances of sacramental theology regarding the lack of authority and inappropriate matter of the subjects of the Reuters story. Unfortunately, to the post-modern mind, even monumental nuance is irrelevant to agenda.

But I still like your letter.

[nickcarraway]

If a bishop ordained a man without getting the proper approval, that would be an illicit ordaination. Some people have said this is an invalid ordaination, but I would go a step further and say it isn't even that. If a bishop did an ordaination, without following the requisite form to make it valid, that would be invalid. In this case, someone (I don't think it mentions who) pretended to ordain this woman. Since it's not clear whether the person was a bishop, who knows if it would have been valid, even if it was a man. This is no more an ordaination than if a lay person had attempted to perform the ordaination. (BTW, it wouldn't be valid if a nonbishop priest had done it, except that some people mught dispute that. Luwig Ott cites cases where a priest ordains another priest, but in those cases the priest is likely a bishop as well. There doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence for ordainations done by priests)