This has certainly produced some remarkable dissembling from some commentators. This one is overwhelmed by the mendacities, denials, prevarications and outright inventions displayed.

I am no theologian so there is little comment I can add and my outrage matches yours. Where is our friend Conservitivation when we need him?

I think I might start a new Church of the Wounded King and have a Rabbi de-frocking ceremony.

Folks should note that Conservative and Orthodox Rabbis have been strangely mute about Talve — they have not taken a public position on it. One would think that, despite the lack of heirarchy in the Jewish faith, Orthodox Rabbis would be weighing in loudly — Both the Orthdodox and Conservative traditions consider Reform Judaism to be a collection of lost souls, if not heretical.

My experience suggests there are reasons why Orthodox and Conservative Rabbi’s are censoring themselves.

1. In the Jewish faith (as derived from Kibbutzim), family is essentially socialized. The role of husbands is largely replaced with duty to the Kibbutz. This modern-day creation is, in fact, feminism in action. This is the controlling ethic spanning all the Jewish traditions — but Talve is simply more radical about it. (Note: this is one reason why Muslims really hate Israel — Muslim men will not let feminism run things in the name of “Democracy”). The role of men is largely ceremonial. The more conservative the Jewish tradition, the more extreme are the rituals men must perform in order to be considered part of the religion. I was shocked to find out that a Jewish woman married to a converted non-Jew decides to kidnap the children to Israel, she has carte-blanche protections. As of the last time I checked, Israel does not recognize interfaith marriages or the paternal parental rights of any male who converted to Judaism.

2. In all Jewish traditions, being Jewish is a matrilineal birthright. If a non-Jewish man marries a Jewish woman, the children are basically considered fatherless in Israel. Conservative and Orthodox traditions I became personally familiar with in St. Louis pointed this out to me. CRC said that they didn’t care what the other religions did, that children would be paternally legitimized if I converted to reform Judaism. Little did I know that those were hollow words, to be later replaced with feminist rationalizations that happen to consistent with more conservative views. There has been ceaseless hot debate among all Jewish traditions about how to handle the situation of a converting woman marrying a Jewish man. There are many malleable answers to this problem, none of which form a consistent policy in the Jewish traditions. Given these realities, it is not unreasonable to say the Judaism is a feminist-racist religion; first placing women on a pedestal, secondly disavowing the paternal legitimacy any non-jewish men who might decide to practice the faith.

In my opinion, young men should not convert to any form of Judaism. No matter how much hazing and “education” you endure, you will still be a third-class citizen. Catholic, Mormon, and Baptist conventions do not care about one’s genetic lineage. They are open to anyone willing to live a good and healthy life.

3. On interfaith marriage: Men — if either you or your intended spouse is not fully willing to convert to one of the above religions, you need to pay attention to this red flag as if your life depended on it. You might as well get it over with now before the children and a hugely expensive divorce leaves you looking at a jail sentence for criminal nonsupport.

4. On religion and racism: Rabbis of all traditions and Jewish philosophers have long been worried about assimilation of Jewish men and women into other faiths. They should be. A religion founded in racism has little chance of growing. Jews looking to live lives not founded in some form of feminism, might find the Catholic, Mormon, or Baptist church quite attractive.

These observations do not imply any anti-semitic values. I am fully aware that some Jewish scholars will be very upset that somebody is talking about what the organized Jewish faith (not the race or the people) is all about. My comments go directly to the problems the religious/political leaders of collective Jewish traditions inflict on their own people and others who would practice it, and what some of those good people are doing to get out from under it. I am greatly concerned about how the “religion” is driving problems of the people who practice it. It is entirely wrong for the ADL to so vehemently object to anything that could be remotely construed as racist, when in fact the Jewish faith is founded on racist and feminist-sexist notions — forming a troubled nation-state facing the wrath of Muslims who don’t like organized feminism operating under the guise of “religion” — which today is the focal point of a tremendous world conflict.

5. On Religion and the Millenium World War: We all need to realize that the problem in the middle east is largely a world-class collision between hyper-feminism and hyper-masculism. Until concerted dialogue is had on this issue, and agreement made as to how the various religious nation-states involved will require their religions to modify their tenets to guarantee men that their social positions as fathers and husband won’t be destroyed, and women will not be killed for being raped or not wearing a burka, this conflict will continue and perhaps escalate. Religious dogma is at the heart of this live “gender war”. Our definition of “Democracy” starts with planeloads of radical feminists telling people how lawyers and feminists will run their countries. Muslims don’t buy it, and I don’t blame them. But we don’t buy their style of pre-emptive subjugation of women either, and with justification as well. Failure to address these issues openly and honestly will leave us in danger of much death and human misery — facing future escalations around the world. There is a peace treaty to be had here, if Ambassadors simply address the right issues directly and fearlessly.

see: http://www.atomick.net/fayelevine/pk/demons02.shtml

Kaballah is “defined” as not being a theosophy or philosophy, but a “work to be done” by travelers who go from town to town giving “charity and assisting people to create better lives for themselves” (whatever that means). See: http://www.kabbalah.com/kabbalah/?cid=quigo&VT=sch&qcat=mainpage2

I have recieved a few lengthy, nonsensical emails from hardheaded supporters of Talve. These supporters can’t see outside the feminist box, so their comments make little if any sense, and do not go to the core theosophical points we raise with regard to what is really being taught at CRC. Whether these people are feminist political activists, or brainwashed followers, is difficult to tell. And, I don’t waste my time arguing with feminists.

Talve’s supporters ignore the issues we raise, attempting to change the subject to all the wonderful things Talve “does” in the interfaith movement helping children and the selectively-defined “oppressed”. Much of this work really goes towards supporting abortion, encouraging further entitlement of the destruction of marriage, and making the synagogue an extension or base of operations for elective single motherhood. Of course, lesbian marriage and elevation of radical women into positions to run the church the way they want (over the objections of sane members of the congregation), are the tactical goals.

I also received a number of much shorter emails from those who strongly agree with this piece. The common thread: these readers know there is something very wrong going on at CRC, but have difficulty seeing/describing the nature of the animal. One reader (who is also a writer), said “I agree 100% but you articulated this so much better than I”.

Such is the work of feminism — using all sorts of hyperbole tand counter-culture methods o achieve a-religious feminist objectives from the beheaded podium of religion.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com:80/ideas_belief/god/Overview_About_God/Angels/Demons/Lilith.htm

and… if you were there, you would have seen what I saw:

At Sunday’s event I found myself questioning: Is being inclusive something we think we will just arrive at, or is it something we strive to have in our lives on an ongoing basis, putting aside our differences and celebrating our similarities in an atmosphere of peace and acceptance?

For some people, like Rabbi Susan, doing the right thing comes easier than for most of us. We might think about what others might think or say; sometimes letting our egos get in the way. I’ve watched her pray with the utmost care to be about moving forward in serving her community with holy intent. She weighs everything before making hard decisions she is well aware will affect those around her.

This past Sunday, I was immersed in sounds of inclusiveness vocalized by the multi-denominational choir on one side of me and a smorgasbord of chatter from interfaith volunteers in our kitchen on the other side. Looking around the room, I could visualize the truth of this interfaith event as the choir sang “All Are Welcome.” I felt a little closer to everyone around me when the choir sang a litany of our shared ancestors; the same ones we mention each Shabbat: Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Miriam. I looked around again and realized our shelter of peace was filled with those seeking refuge for the holy intent found in their hearts. I said a silent prayer asking God to give these women the strength they will need for the road they are about to walk down.

I realized my purpose for being there was to continue my education, witness a holy event experienced through my Jewish faith and interaction with other faiths to create inclusiveness on a regular basis, and learn how to walk in the ways of my words. There is power in our words and how we choose to use them. When we say we are inclusive, we don’t get to say… “Except for…”

I can retell Sunday’s events only from my perspective of a Jew by Choice. I feel it has enriched my spiritual growth to see our words put into actions supporting our values. While we all see God from different perspectives, there is only one Source of all Creation and we are all part of that Oneness. Acceptance of our differences would seem to be the key to… Shalom.

The implication being that sooner or later the Church’s leadership will come in line with the people and the times. PenGal’s faulty assumption comes from thinking that Catholic church is just like every other church and the society itself in that it must eventually give into the “will of the people” That the group is simply the collective expression of all the members. The Church isn’t like that. The Church is a kingdom, and Jesus Christ is its king. It is run from the top down. This is a difficult thing for any American to get used to, and feminism cannot even exists within such a context, which is why it is so hostile toward the Church. Our last pope made it quite clear:

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994

For those who don’t know, this is an example of the pope “teaching infallibly.” Regardless if you believe that the Pope has such power or not, the practical matter is that if you are a catholic you must believe it and nothing can undo or change this kind of a decree within the Church, not even another Pope or even the same Pope can undo this kind of a statement. It is now a dogmatic belief of the church and, as the last clause makes clear, you have to accept the teaching to remain a Catholic. So, the 60% mentioned above, which I don’t doubt is very much inflated, at best represents a portion of the Church that is by definition separating itself from the Church by holding a manifestly heretical belief. I suspect most Catholics who fall into this category simply are not aware of the correct church teaching but are rather being lead astray by liberal “Spirit of Vatican II” priests and religious education directors.

As for the women “priests” and the “bishop” who ordained them, they are clearly not Catholic priests regardless of their claims as the above mentioned decree clearly and directly precludes. Just because you say you are a Catholic priests doesn’t mean that you actually are any more than you can suddenly declare yourself the sheriff of your county or declare yourself the Duke of Texas. To become the something of somewhere the governing body of somewhere must, in accordance with there own laws, make you so. You can create your own religion or society and proclaim yourself the high priestess of it but… who cares.

as for #2, the argument is not uncommon and completely in error. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis also covers that topic briefly as well as referencing other documents by himself, preceding Popes and documents from Vatican II. The topic is treated in considerably more detail in Blessed John Paul II’s book and addresses on the theology of the body. An excellent and more direct treatment of the subject can be found in “The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church” by Sara Butler http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595250166

#3 is both incorrect and immaterial. Priestly Celibacy is suggested as early as St Paul in I Cor 7:7-8 and though in the first centuries both married and unmarried priests and bishops abound, later at about 300 A.D. the Council of Elvira prohibited marriage to those already ordained. This rule was reinforced at the Council of Carthage in 390 which also required those who were already married to abstain from sex with their wives. From this point it rapidly developed into preferring unmarried priests for ordination though still today men can be ordained deacons while still married though they can never remarry if their wife passes away and may then be ordained a priest if he would like and the bishop permits. It is also interesting to note that married priests from High Church Protestantism, such as Anglicans, who convert to Catholicism can, when granted and exception by the Pope, be ordained and this does happen once in a while and seem likely to happen again soon. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/october2007/anglicansconvert.htm

That being said, what does it have to do with women being ordained? Virtually nothing. Again the implication is that because there are, and have been, exceptions to the rule of priestly celibacy, why not to women being ordained? Well, because one is a rule and nothing more, the other is a dogma of the Church and will never change. Priestly celibacy is not even a doctrine, you don’t have to believe in it at all to remain a catholic. You can write letters to the Pope asking him to change it and anytime he feels like it he can. It is only the current rule of the western rite (Latin) Churches at that. That is not to down play the fact that it is part of the code of canon law and cannot simply be broken. So no use trying to compare apples to hand grenades. A good book on the topic, by the way, is Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Origins-Priestly-Celibacy-Christian/dp/0898709512

She was on the big local clear-channel AM station yesterday, KMOX 1120. Her original aggressive position that she was “hosting” a much needed event changed to essentially say they were “just providing space” (as if CRC is a rent-free public meeting hall for the downtrodden masses). It was hilarious to hear her rationalization, which loosely went something like “we could not justify putting up another building in St. Louis unless it was to be a space that everyone can use”. Her latest position is an invitation for skinheads and all the other fringe lunatics (religious or otherwise) to ask for their religiously-amplified meeting space too.

This is part of the overall feminist plan, destroy the family and religion..

1.) “surveys” show that over 60% of Catholics favor women priests?

Even when considering a minority of the total world population of Catholics, namely those in the U.S., that “survey” will produce, and has produced dramatically varying results depending among other things, when the survey was taken and the sub-set of the U.S. Catholic population that was “surveyed”. So when choosing your “facts” let’s keep in mind to not simply choose those facts that support your conclusion. As far as world Catholics go-female priests is a non-starter. Female priests are not supported by the world’s Catholics-both male and female. Most devoutly Catholic communities throughout the world view American Catholics, not as progessives, but as weak-minded, and weakly committed Catholics ignorant of Church Doctrine. They are correct. To live the faith is not easy-and Americans want things to be easy. As an American Catholic I can tell you that there are many of us who are more than happy to get rid of the deadwood. Our current Pope understands this as well. Get on-board with Catholicism or get another church is our message. The universal Catholic Church is powerful and we are strong enough to do this-and DRU is correct in that we are the lone bullwork against radical feminism and their main religion:abortion. We will still be around when both of these are nothing more than bad history.

2.) & 3.) are completley wrong. I will leave it up to you to attempt to make the case for these first before I expose your falsehoods.

As far as CRC growing, who cares? You are no challenge to the Catholic Church. You have no comparable numbers to the Catholic Church. The CRC will one day be long gone while the Catholic Church continues and grows without even noticing that the CRC came and left. THE CHURCH has survived far bigger threats over the centuries and has grown into a vast church with a huge world following.

You have no hope.

This is known as “femspeak”, no credibilty can be given to this response. Feminists and their determined male-hatred is there for all to see and if it means that they have to destroy any religion that opposes that lunacy, so be it (except Islam).

Those of you sitting on the side lines scratching your head wondering where this great evil comes from one has only to look at the past effort of these male-haters to see exactly what they are determined to do.

Destroy families and religion..

Surveys hold no value in the bible, torah, and talmud. Everyone would love a million dollars too, but this does not change religious proscriptions against stealing the property of others.

Since the Pope could never be the Virgin Mary, the Virgin Mary can never be the Pope. In secular terms: men cannot have babies and women can. Husbandry and fatherhood is proscribed by feminism as being dangerous or at best optional, instantly replaceable by money. Half of American families have been destroyed by radical feminists. We cannot permit them to take over religious instutions in the name of “women’s rights”.

Necessarily, the church is structured to ensure that women cannot run amok. This is precisely the goal of radical feminism that cannot be permitted under any circumstances.

I have nothing against homosexuals. But I and many others strongly oppose N.O.W.s plan for women to take over the institution of marriage in the name of lesbianism. If you endorse that, it is you who are bigoted, not I.

Yourself, Susan Talve, and others have no business making a big deal about women being treated as second-class citizens when men are commonly treated as third-class citizens in terms of marital and divorce rights. Whether or not a few women get to be priests is of minor consequence in comparison with the massive levels of discrimination feminists foist on men. And, since Talve is a feminist, it is pretty hard to pretend that this value system is not operative in her “ministry” (and I have a number of personal experiences suggesting this is the case).

I almost never write about anything I have personally experienced. This was a particularly unusual situation, because my personal experiences have bearing on the contemporary issues. My pieces always address the total substance of the total issue. Those who fail to notice that there is something wrong with CRC fortifying same sex marriages with Torah have a convenient reading problem that is hurting them badly. Morals lead people out of behaviours that cause them great problems in their lives. To whittle-away morals to fit what people feel like doing is most certainly not what any credible religious institution does.

And, what publication do you write for?

in the OT God was VERY specific about who could act as Priests. He not only assigned that task solely to men, but only to men of a certain tribe. He was very picky and made a deadly point toward Aaron.

i’m sure someone has been whispering instructions in these women’s ears, but i doubt it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. all thru the Bible the people of God followed false leaders, and paid the ultimate price.

IMHo – the battle lines are being drawn for a great battle. we appear to already be fighting skirmishes. Good on the one side w/ evil on the other. the banners are being unfurled. where do you stand?

i hope you can get your kid(s) out of that mess david.

As a reporter who attended Sunday’s event, I can tell you that you have your “facts” wrong. It is apparent you are using an event that promotes women’s rights to further your own personal tirade against Talve because you feel you were wronged during your son’s bat mitzvah. Just because your ex-wife didn’t want you to participate in the ceremony (and based on reading your diatribe I can see why) you are attacking all women who don’t want to be treated as second class citizens.

Seems you also feel that way about homosexuals…

If you would do your research you would discover:
1. Surveys show over 60% of Catholics favor women priests.
2. In the early centuries of the common era, women indeed did serve as priests and deacons.
3. Priests were allowed to marry up until the 1200s (I may have the century wrong on this) when the Church decided it didn’t like priests willing their land to their families instead of the Church. So, they made up a new rule requiring priests to be celibate. Look how well that’s worked out for them!
4. The membership at CRC is growing. Prospective members are told at orientation what the politics of the synagogue are. If they don’t like them, they don’t join. The social leanings of CRC are made clear up front. Many of us don’t agree with 100% of what our rabbis profess, but can you find me any congregation of any faith where 100% of the congregants agree with 100% of the ministers’ beliefs? Outside of compound-living cults, you can’t.
5. Rabbi Talve did NOT ordain anyone. She doesn’t have the power to perform ordinations anyway. Why would you even insinuate that she ordained Catholic priests? While she is the most visible face of CRC, she did not make the decision to host the ordination alone. It was a board decision backed by members of the congregation.
6. As for interfaith relationships, an article I just filed on this subject reinforces how uninformed you are. While the hierarchical members of the Catholic Church (i.e. Archbishop Burke and his ilk) may not be happy (and as a mouthpiece for the radical right wing of the Republican party if he’s not controlling every aspect of people’s lives he’s not happy anyway) the folks on the lower rungs of the faith (the ones who put their tukhes in pews and chairs) are talking about similarities and shared values. A priest I interviewed said that Rabbi Talve did more for interfaith relationships that all the dialoguing in the world.

You are entitled to your opinion and to vent your rage at how you feel you’ve been mistreated by women in general, but please make sure you get your “facts” straight before you launch a smear campaign against one of the most forward-thinking and brave members of the clergy.

According to the Post Dispatch, the two women are claiming they were ordained at CRC on 11/12/2007. They are leading their first illegitimate service on December 1, at the First Unitarian Church (across the street from CRC). This area is a hotbed of radical liberalism, part of the “Central West End”.

Cite: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/18BF6F975CE415978625739100184C6F?OpenDocument

ST. LOUIS — “To the Roman Catholic Church, the ceremony was not an ordination. In fact, it wasn’t even Roman Catholic. But to two women and the approximately 600 people who came to cheer them on, history was made Sunday in St. Louis as the two became the first women ever in the city to be ordained as Catholic priests.

Rose Marie Hudson, 67, of Festus, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, of St. Louis, were ordained as priests by an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which defines itself “as an international initiative within the Roman Catholic Church.”

I’m quite sure that much of the Jewish Community is very upset with her. Talve and CRC lost a lot more friends and respect than they gained. This will cost them dearly in the long run.

I suspect there are a fair number of individuals within CRC who are not happy about it either. While the board vote was unanimous in favor of supporting Talve, I am sure there are some board who “had” to go along to avoid nasty cat-calls from radical activists who would call them bigoted if they voted against it (in management science, this kind of unexpected acclimation when polarized issues are involved is called an “Abilene Paradox”).

Having dealt with religious anarchists before, I suggest CRC members who disapprove of this to stay home and read Torah, not donate a dime to CRC until Talve is gone. Board members should not be afraid of these people. Speak your mind, and stand your ground.

There was a brouhaha over same-sex ceremonies at a liberal U.C.C. church in St. Louis a few years back. It was a similar situation involving a crusading gay-rights pastor who was a professional at forcing his agenda on the congregation, while scaring folks so they were afraid to speak up (most folks are terrified of being called a bigot by their pastor). Half the church stayed home and read their bibles after we leafleted the church lot suggesting they do that. The church was going broke. Responsible board members found the courage to talk about “it”. The board was leaning towards firing the pastor, but decided to hire an outside consulting company to poll the congregation. Upon finding out that the pastor had a 66% disapproval rating, he was immediately fired. A new pastor was hired, the congregation came back, and all is well.

I’m not sure what kind of rules Judaism has about insane rabbis, but I doubt it’s much different from Christianities’ rules about insane preachers (our rules come from yours, after all). They have to have a grip on reality.