Anchorage Catholic Editor Slams "Misogynist" John Paul II
**Note: The link to the Catholic World News Article below has been updated significantly to include references to the editor supporting pro-choice organizations among other things.***
Thanks for The Catholic Report for reporting this. The basic information, including her blog information, may be found here.
It seems that the editor of the Anchorage archdiocesan newspaper, a Maia Nolan, a self-described cafeteria Catholic, has posted some comments about John Paul II on her personal blog, soon after he passed away. Apparently the uproar is happening now because she has recently been made the editor. Who knows, perhaps she no longer feels this way. Here are snippets from her post, now removed:
Unless you’ve been living in a cave (or lined up outside Toys “R” Us for three days, waiting to buy Revenge of the Sith action figures), you know that Pope John Paul II died on Saturday night. A solemn and momentous occasion, losing the man who’s been the leader of one of the world’s most prolific churches. But I’m finding it impossible to achieve any level of actual papal-passing grief.
Listen, I know some of you out there are JP2 fans, and I think that’s just great. I think it’s really swell to love the pope. And he did a lot of good stuff, what with the reconciling with other religious and visiting 129 countries and all. But before we all get caught up in funeral fever, let’s just check ourselves, shall we? To begin with, the man was 84 years old. That’s old. This is not a man cut down tragically in his prime. He lived a full life. And he got to be pope for an ungodly amount of time (no pun intended).
Then there’s the real issue. This pope, this benevolent, everyone’s-best-friend, Karol-from-Poland pope, was an unbelievable misogynist. News flash, kids: JP2 did not like women. And he spent the last 26 years working overtime to keep us in our place. When it comes right down to it, all the globetrotting and rift-mending in the world doesn’t quite make up for the fact that Pope John Paul II obviously believed that, on a fundamental level, women are not as good as men…
…This is a major moment in Catholicism. It would be nice to think that the next pope might be a little more progressive, a little more pragmatic. Of course, the College of Cardinals is packed with a bunch of old conservative guys who generally share the most recent pope’s reactionary approach to gender politics, so it would also be a foolish thing to think…
Now, to be fair, I did remove some points of her post, mainly because I don’t feel it is appropriate to paste her entire post here. I only left out a part where she argues that since many females help run parishes (as Catechists, etc), females are pretty much running the church anyway. I don’t believe that is a good argument for female priests, but it does show the Church is less misogynist and less hostile to “gender politics” than those who constantly use these particular buzzwords would admit.
Anyway, back to the point. Popes are not above criticism, but what she is criticizing is the long-held Teaching of the Church regarding women’s ordination, not just John Paul II. Here is my beef: for a high-up in any Catholic diocese to post these things is troubling, even if these views haven’t made it into the diocesan newspaper yet. In an earlier post, I suggested that the church tolerates quiet dissension, simply because the wheat and tares always grow together (plus who knows, I could be a tare!). Also I would add that this toleration also applies to those who faithfully press the boundaries of the faith, but who are willing to be corrected and/or disciplined by the Church when they have erred. However, in the case of those in influential diocesan positions who blatantly and willfully teach contrary to the Church and know full-well they are doing it, I think honesty and genuineness demand that the person resign if he or she cannot in good faith affirm the Teachings of the Church. I also think that in order to correct the serious catechesis problem in the United States, bishops need to make sure applicants for influential positions are able to affirm the Teachings of the Church, or at least commit to teaching them publically, even if they have personal doubt. Now, I am not a psychic, so I don’t know if Ms. Nolan will or will not publically teach against Church Teaching (blogging does not necessarily equal public teaching - as Lutherpunk mentioned in the comments below). However, it is extremely difficult (and I am sure personally troubling) to publically uphold something that internally you strongly oppose.
I am sure Ms. Nolan is a fine editor, and a fine English Teacher. However, being a diocesan newspaper editor brings with it certain spiritual and ecclesiastical responsibilities. I challenge her to embrace the full Teachings of the Catholic Church.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
September 27, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Bottom line: “Ms” Nolan should be excommunicated…along with ALL her ilk. End of story.
September 27, 2006 at 4:41 pm
So, is there any room for dissent? And at what point does one draw the line between public and private personas?
September 27, 2006 at 5:57 pm
LP,
I think there is a difference between public and private dissent, and faithful speculation (willing to be corrected) vs. unfaithful (unwilling to be corrected), and of course sometimes history says the Church’s decision at the time was wrong (Galileo being one example).
I guess my concern is that you have individuals who are paid by the diocese, represent the diocese, and the Catholic Church, and publically teach contrary to Church Teaching. Commomsense says there are qualified individuals out there who are willing to uphold Church Teaching.
September 27, 2006 at 8:19 pm
I guess what struck me about the post was that (as I understood it)she was saying this on her private blog. If this is true, does her blog constitute a public teaching office?
I ask this because I do not see my blog as being connected to my public teaching office. I speak much of the church and ministry because it is my particular context and shapes my worldview, but I do not equate what I write in a blog with what I would put in something like a homily or a public position paper. And as you know, I write things in my blogs (mostly speculation or opinion) that would not be supported by my hierarchy.
I am not defending what she said so much as just begging the question of what consitutes public and private. It seems she has a semi anonymous blog where she voices her personal opinions. It is not like she is writing this and putting it on the front page of the paper.
Lots of people get online and complain about religion, politics, their jobs, etc. I just think all those people calling for her resignation or excommunication over (and one calling her a neanderthal) at Catholic Report are blowing this WAY out of proportion.
Of course, I am on the outside looking in…and mean no offense…but is this really that big a deal?
(BTW, lest someone opine that I hate JP2 or something, it should be known I have a photo of him in my office at the Lutheran Church).
September 27, 2006 at 8:45 pm
LP,
I guess my issue was not so much that she blogged about it. In fact, I think we should all have the right to blog about whatever we want within reason without recrimination from our superiors.
However, my concern is with her views and her being high up in diocesan influece. Perhaps she was just frustrated and venting, and I understand that. Perhaps these are merely private views. However, if she carries these views to her editorial job, I think there are problems, especially considering her job. Now, maybe she will edit according to the party-line. Maybe she truly will use the position to promote Church Teaching. If she can’t, I think a non-diocesan paper is more appropriate. I could even handle if she stayed on for the paper as a writer who got a public discussion of the issues started, where both sides could be presented. I guess (and I know you can sympathize, perhaps on different issues than WO) that faithful Catholics would like to have a diocesan paper that actually helps us in our faith, as opposed to one that just gets skimmed and thrown away. And sadly most materials from my former grad school go to file 13 almost immediately.
And I agree some of the reactions have been way too harsh.
September 27, 2006 at 8:59 pm
LP,
I think you were referring to the Catholic World News site. That is where the “neanderthal” comment was located.
September 27, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I stand corrected, it was Catholic World News.
I did also notice that the post was written some year and half prior to her hiring. I did some things prior to my calling as well that I am glad have been overlooked. I think you are right, David, in saying that if she can do her job according to the guidelines she has been given, then all will be ok. If she turns the paper into a revisionist propaganda machine, then that is different story.
I just hope people err on the side of grace…God knows we all need it (some of us more than others)!
September 27, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Now that’s new…a spammer who posts a comment relating to the post! lol. I’ll delete that.
LP,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, we should err on the side of grace in these matters, and I think since Vatican II the Church has done so, almost to a fault.
September 28, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I think this raises a very real issue. I think there are many people who think that, in their public persona, they can use their position to push their own opinions.
LP, your blog is, as you say “semi-anonymous,” so you have some ability to voice your personal opinions on that site. Because I post using my name and title, I always assume that a member of my congregation could read my posts, or that people will link my posts with my office.
This woman posted these thoughts before she was in her current position, and that complicates the issue. But, I still think the issue is an important one.
How many pastors/priests walk around bad-mouthing the church or their particular congregation or some church leader? Quite simply, it is inappropriate because of the office. Yes, I have my own thoughts and misgivings, but I am very careful in how and where I express those.
October 1, 2006 at 6:22 pm
I am sure Ms. Nolan is a fine editor
Give me a break. She:
a) lacks any common sense (blogging that stuff?)
b) lack the ability to use logic and reason to make arguments - she simply rants and throws fits
c) is mean-spirited and has a lot of anger at the very people she would be writing/editing for!
There is simply no way she can be a good editor.