Monday, February 18, 2013
Susan Bailey, The Catholic Free Press and historical revisionism
The Catholic Free Press is published by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus. Unfortunately, Bishop McManus doesn't seem to spend enough time (if any at all) overseeing what goes into the publication. It is a Bishop's vocation to watch over his diocese as a spiritual father (the word Bishop comes from the Greek word episcopos meaning overseer), ensuring that anything which is opposed to faith and morals is dealt with quickly and appropriately.
Once again, because of the Bishop's failure to oversee The Catholic Free Press and its content, the publication has engaged in historical revisionism as it attempts to re-write the legacy of the Commission for Women and one of its more prominent members - Mary T. Donovan.
Writing for The Catholic Free Press, Susan Bailey attempts to sell the idea that Mary Donovan, a member and former chairperson of the "Commission for Women" of the diocese whp passed away last month, was "a wise woman born of a deep faith," a woman whose wisdom was "devoid of arrogance." (In remembrance of a pioneer, February 8, 2013 edition of The Catholic Free Press).
In reality, Mary Donovan was an angry and self-important radical feminist who believed that it was her role to "correct" the living teaching office of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium. But then, the commission she was associated with was little more itself than an instrument of dissent and radical feminist agitprop. And nothing has changed. Read my previous posts on the Commission for Women and its "Gather us In Conference" which features dissident speakers who agitate for women's ordination and New Age spirituality.
Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan freely acknowledged this herself. In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple. We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God. We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us. We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility. We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor. We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).
In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).
While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).
Yes indeed, Mary Donovan was so wise and devoid of arrogance that she openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."
Susan Bailey would have us believe that Mary Donovan was a "role model" and a "woman of strong faith." But these lies do not square with the facts. Mary Donovan was more of a petulant child who, along with her associates in dissent at the "Commission for Women," was more concerned with pursuing her own wants and desires ("we want, we want, we want") than on fulfilling the duties of her vocation while remaining obedient to Christ Jesus Who guides us through the living teaching office of His Church.