Re "What would Mary do?" editorial, Nov. 30
Unlike other religious teachers of his time, Jesus treated women as equals. He even chastised his friend, Martha, for accepting a traditional woman's role (Luke 10:38-42). Not surprisingly, many women found his message appealing and were the original financiers of his ministry (Luke 8:3).
Given their second-class status in the church, have women received a good return on their investment?
As a Catholic priest who resigned mainly because of the church's regressive views on women, I have heard all of the arguments against women's ordination. I find them wanting.
The "likeness to Christ" argument would likely come out differently were it not made by the same paternalistic hierarchy that consistently opposes change to any part of its power structure. And as for Scripture, it also tells us that in Christ there is "neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28).
So where does that leave us? Personally, I will believe that the Catholic Church is taking change seriously when we have a black pope from the Third World who is pregnant.
William J. Davis
It never ceases to amaze Catholics how often secular media outlets find it their business to opine about the internal matters of the Catholic Church.
The editorial on the Catholic Church's strictures for its clergy is just the latest example. As no one is forced to be Catholic, and anyone who is Catholic can quit at any time, it smacks of something other than curiosity that a newspaper thinks it right to judge a world religion through its secular lenses.
With regard to the editorial "What would Mary do?" -- and based on the anti-Catholic vitriol in The Times' reporting and editorial pages -- Mary would cancel her subscription.