Responding to Orlando as a Catholic: The Need to Feel Challenged and Uncomfortable

In the wake of the shooting in Orlando last week, I have been wondering what a heterosexual Catholic woman in academia is supposed to say. It is obvious from the timing of this post, I put off publishing a blog, and the one I am sharing now has been through numerous drafts.

Just a short while ago, I came across an article written by Paul Reid-Bowen, a male scholar of religion who asks the question of whether one can be a man, and still write about feminism from a position of advocacy and commitment. He acknowledges that as a man in a patriarchal culture, his sexual difference is problematic for feminism. If this were not the case, feminism would not need to exist in the first place. Reid-Bowen insists, therefore, that, “if any man is comfortable with feminism, something is amiss.”

As a Catholic woman, it hurts to think about how my church’s position of “Hate the sin, love the sinner” bears responsibility for feelings of homophobia and widespread discrimination against LGBTQ persons. While the church condemns violence against LGBTQ persons, a theology that defines the sacrament of marriage as solely “the union between a man and a woman” and considers homosexual inclinations to be “intrinsically disordered” does nothing to challenge the undeserved dominant position that heterosexual persons enjoy in our church or in society. With this theology, a same-sex couple can never have their union affirmed as sacramental, and being in a same-sex relationship is rendered “sinful,” for no other reason than that it defies the traditional male-female gender binary. It is no wonder that a Catholic child who does not fit neatly into traditional gender stereotypes might grow up feeling frightened and ashamed, and at risk for depression and even suicide. A lot of Catholics are afraid to publicly commit to a theology that embraces LGBTQ persons as the “image of God,” rather than persons with a disorder that needs correction, or to publicly support the availability of the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples who love each other. We fear not only condemnation from fellow Catholics and from clergy in positions of power, but we also fear having to come face to face with our own responsibility for events like Orlando. We fear being “radical.”

I do not feel I have the right to say exactly what the Catholic Church needs to do to support the LGBTQ community right now. But I must say that I think that a shift in theology and Church teaching would be a step in the direction, precisely because the full affirmation of LGBTQ persons and relationships would be “radical.” In other words, when entering a position of advocacy for and commitment to the LGBTQ community, heterosexual Catholics and those in positions of power in the church are supposed to feel challenged and uncomfortable, or else “something is amiss.”

Finally, I speak of the need for a new theology not to be “politically correct,” but because this is what I believe is required for Catholic Christians to be disciples of Jesus in today’s world. I can no longer believe in God who is displeased with God’s own creatures solely for being who they are. In the words of Edward Schillebeeckx, “it is better not to believe in God than to believe in a God who enslaves human beings.”





Challenge Hillary If You Must But Stop Telling Her To Lower Her Voice

In the 2016 Democratic primary, we have two strong candidates. There are legitimate reasons to prefer one candidate over the other. Most of us do. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to critique Hillary Clinton on her policy positions, past speeches/votes/decisions, etc. As a Hillary supporter, I want to hear such critiques and dialogue with those who have opinions that differ from my own. After all, my fiance is “feeling the Bern” and we are still happily engaged.

However, to be frank, I am tired of hearing people complain about Hillary Clinton’s voice. Is she loud? Yes. IT’S A POLITICAL DEBATE. In political debates, people vigorously defend their policy positions. When have you ever seen a candidate sit back and say, “Oh gee thanks, you’re right, I’m wrong, sorry I’m running for president and taking up your time.”

Before dismissing the possibility that sexism is at play here, please think carefully. As a woman in academia, I can say that many people are still very uncomfortable with a woman being assertive. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have been told I was “loud” or should “calm down.” Every day, I witness female students (undergraduates all the way up to the doctoral level) apologize for raising their hand to make a point, or for disagreeing with a professor or fellow student. Numerous studies have shown that American workers still prefer a male boss to a female boss. A male leader is strong and efficient, while a female one is often “bitchy” and “loud.” Women are still subject to scrutiny for their appearance more so than men (Barack Obama’s suits never seemed to get as much air time as Hillary Clinton’s did in 2008). Women are expected to always smile (yes, it was also wrong to criticize Carly Fiorina for not smiling enough), be polite, and look pretty. I am not accusing men here, women expect this of other women too, albeit often unconsciously.

There is nothing wrong with not liking what a woman (or any public person) has to say. All I ask is that we all think twice before criticizing the way she says it or for defending her beliefs (even if they are not your own). There are a lot of questions Hillary may need to answer from voters, but she does not need to apologize for taking up space.

Personally, I want a president who is loud (I think most of us do!). I want a president who feels passionately about the issues facing this country. I want a president who is going to be boisterous in protesting Congressional attempts to restrict women’s access to reproductive health care, or to defund Planned Parenthood, or to justify discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

Last night, I was very proud of both candidates, namely for talking about the issues that matter instead of the size of Donald Trump’s you-know-what. Did things get heated? Yes. But BOTH candidates interrupted one another to correct what they believed were misrepresentations of their views, and BOTH candidates were pretty vocal in defending themselves against criticism. And I am glad they did! That’s how debates work. That is why moderators are there.

So, please, tell me why you are voting for Bernie Sanders. Challenge me. Ask me questions.  I am not always right, neither is Hillary Clinton (or anybody!) But, please, don’t tell me to be quiet or lower my voice (unless we are in church or the library or a context where it is inappropriate to argue politics). And don’t tell Hillary to lower her’s either!


A Loud and Proud Female Voter

For The 2016 Presidential Campaign: As A Woman, 6 Things I Ask of Fellow Voters

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I was a freshman at Fordham University and an avid Hillary Clinton supporter in the Democratic primary. While I did not get up and shout this from the rooftops of my dorm room in Manhattan, I did proudly display stickers on my backpack and was happy to tell people whom I was voting for when asked. I was deeply offended when many people expressed the following sentiments to me:

“Are you just voting for her because she is a woman?” Yes, even though I am a political science major, I know nothing about politics. And when I participated in the Young Democrats in high school, I was secretly a diehard Republican.

“You should read up on the issues.” Because, of course, an eighteen year old woman is too stupid to pick up a newspaper.

“Just so you know, electing a woman is not going to solve all the problems of gender inequality.”   Sorry. I totally mistook Hillary Clinton for the second coming of Jesus Christ.

“You should vote for the best candidate instead of voting for someone because you want to see a woman president.” Yes, because there is just no way a woman could actually BE the best candidate. No way, not when there are men running.

Some of my rejoinders are sarcastic, but I think my point is clear. So, this year, I am making a few simple requests.

1. Please do not accuse me of supporting Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.

You can disagree with me, and you can even actively campaign against Hillary Clinton. However, please respect that I am an informed and intelligent woman. I would not vote for a woman who does not share the same concerns as I do or who holds policy positions that differ drastically from my own.

2. If you are going to criticize Hillary Clinton, please criticize her on something that is actually relevant.

Keep your comments about clothing, weight, hair style, and appearance to yourself. Not only are such comments rude and demeaning, but they contribute nothing to your argument that I should vote for your preferred candidate. Women are not sex objects.

3. Before reacting negatively to a particular comment or speech, please honestly ask yourself “Would I feel the same way if this had been said or done by man?”

Would you think a man was unable to cope with the stress of the presidency if he were to show emotion?

Would you call a man bossy or a bitch for being a demanding leader or for being assertive in a debate?

I am not saying that women cannot abuse their power, but women and men should be held to the same standards.

4. Please do not say something along the lines of “I’m sorry, but I’m voting for …..”

Don’t apologize. I am not angry with you for not supporting Hillary Clinton and I do not think you are sexist. As theologian Emilie Townes states, “refusing to critique is a sign of devaluing and disrespect or worse- ignorance.” If you can tell me that you are not voting for Hillary because you disagree with some of the actions she took as Secretary of State, or differ with her certain political issues, all without using misogynist language, it shows that you take a woman seriously as a presidential candidate. It also shows that you recognize my intelligence, strength, and maturity as a woman voter. My two favorite topics are politics and religion (the two things you are not supposed to talk about at the dinner table), I can handle a debate!

5. Do not tell other women they are supposed to vote for Hillary or else they are traitors.

What women are SUPPOSED to do is making an opinion based on their own values, beliefs, and concerns. Telling a woman she needs to vote for a woman in order to be a feminist defeats the entire purpose of feminism.

6. Do not say that sexism is a thing of the past just because we have a female running for president.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 were celebratory moments, but racism still persists. There is still work to be done. Similarly, if we elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, it will signal that some more progress has been made, but it will not be a panacea for all the struggles women still face in our country. We all still need to examine our own biases and listen to those who have been and continue to be marginalized on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical disability. 

Disagreements, even among persons of the same political party, are inevitable as election season gets into gear. We need not shy away from expressing our honest opinions, but let us please do so without using misogynistic, racist, or heterosexist language. To the person who disagrees with you, say “I disagree with you. I feel differently, here is why….” instead of “You’re an idiot.” In the end, let’s face it, none of us (not even Hillary Clinton, although I admire her greatly) has all of the correct answers!

2016 election

A Message to Pope Francis: Birth Control is an Economic Issue

On Monday, Pope Francis made quite a remarkable statement in beseeching Catholics to speak of “responsible parenthood.” He continued, “Some think that- excuse the word- in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No.”

What great news for Catholic families, right? Not so fast.

While Francis seems to be condoning the practice of couples making a deliberate choice to limit the number of children they have, he still firmly upholds the Church’s prohibition on the use of artificial contraception outlined in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. According to Francis, “this is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors.” In his view, God gives [parents] methods to be responsible” and couples should rely on natural family planning.

Considering that Pope Francis has wanted to make the poor a central focus of his papacy, I cannot help but be extremely disappointed in his remarks. Family planning has often been considered a feminist issue and rightly so, in that it helps move beyond the idea that a woman’s role in life is simply to be the bearer of children, regardless of what this does to her physical or emotional health. However, family planning is also very much an economic issue. Of course, it cannot be denied that feminist issues and economic issues are constantly intertwined, as sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination are directly related to poverty.

First of all, as a woman, I find it troubling that celibate males continue to be the only authorities in the Church who dictate Catholic teaching. These men have never experienced life in a woman’s body, yet they seem to consider themselves experts on this topic. While natural family planning may be a successful solution for some couples, it is not applicable to all women. Not all women have regular menstrual cycles, due to a variety of factors including genetics or certain medical conditions. Yet, even for women with cycles which are not irregular, ovulation does not occur at the same time each month and no woman’s menstrual cycle is identical from month to month. The rhythm method has an average failure rate of 13-20%.

Now, wait a minute. If the failure rate is 13-20%, that means the success rate is 80-87%. Not bad, some may say. And for some couples, those statistics may be comforting enough. For the healthy man and woman who both have secure jobs with benefits, a large home, and the money to hire a nanny for the three children they already have, adding a fourth might not be such a frightening prospect. Sure, it might be tough having another newborn, but they at least have the money to feed and clothe this child, and eventually help him or her through college. This couple also has a low chance of a pregnancy complications. This is not to say that such a couple must or should always be open to more children, but simply that taking their chances with the rhythm method may be easier for them to do than for some other couples.

Not every family is as fortunate to be financially secure. It is estimated that in the United States alone, anywhere from 47-50 million families are living in poverty. This number grows exponentially when taking into account families across the world. This number also increases when considering families who do not meet the standards to be considered impoverished, but are struggling due to a lay-off or disability, or parents who work two or three jobs to stay above poverty level. Taking time off from work to have a child may can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many parents. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, women make only 78% for every dollar earned by a man. This gap is even larger for African American and Hispanic women.  Yet, women make up half of the work force and are the primary breadwinner in 4 out of 10 American families. Furthermore, the Family and Medical Leave Act only requires companies to provide 12 weeks of unpaid lave for the birth or adoption of a child if those companies have 50 more more employees and an employee has worked at the company for at least a year.

Besides financial problems, some couples also struggle with mental or physical health issues. Pregnancy affects all women differently. Even though I have never been pregnant myself, I have known many people who have and hearing their experiences proves the preceding statement is true. Some women will experience very little pain throughout their pregnancy, while other women have complications that result in being put on bed rest, or they struggle with depression. Some women are even told after giving birth not to have any more children, as this could put them in danger of serious health issues and may even cause death. Suddenly, when the entire family’s well-being is at stake, 80-87% success rate is just not enough.

Artificial methods of contraception, in particular the pill and IUD, have success rates close to 99%, and are a safer option for women with menstrual irregularities. Furthermore, some women chose to use birth control pills for reasons other than contraception. They are often necessary for women with painful menstrual cycles, an experience for which the Magisterium cannot claim to know firsthand. They also protect against some forms of cancer. Sadly, birth control is still unaffordable and inaccessible for many women, even after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Wait a minute. If some couples are truly unable to have another child, shouldn’t they avoid intercourse? Some may say so. However, love happens across economic boundaries. Why should a couple who is less financially well-off not be able to express their mutual love and affection for one another? Is sexual intercourse only for the economically and socially privileged?

Finally, Catholic couples are finding through their own personal experience that use of contraception does not inhibit their ability to be loving disciples of Jesus Christ. In 1963, Pope John XXIII established the Papal Commission on Birth Control. In 1966, this commission released its majority report, which saw the use of artificial contraception as a valid extension of natural family planning, “for it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature.”

Pope Paul VI’s ultimately rejected the commission’s position, by maintaing the Church’s ban on artificial forms of contraception in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. It is now 2015, and so may devoted Catholics are still made to feel ashamed for making the reproductive health decisions that are best suited to their particular situations. Pope Francis, if you truly care about the poverty and oppression, will you please step up and listen to Catholic families, and in particular, Catholic women?

And Jesus Wept: Why Christians Should Lament Duke’s Cancellation of the Muslim Call to Prayer

As a doctoral student with a research interest in Muslim-Christian dialogue, I was saddened to hear that Duke University cancelled its plans to have its Muslim students sound the Friday call to prayer, or adhan, from the university chapel. I may not be Muslim myself, but I feel that my Catholic faith has been strengthened by my encounter with Islam in my academic studies. I cannot speak as a Muslim, but if I am to call myself a disciple of Jesus, I believe I must express my outrage at Duke’s decision.

On January 15th,  Franklin Graham, one of the major figures who opposed the call to prayer on Duke’s campus, posted the following statement on Facebook.

“The Muslim call to prayer that has been approved to go out across the campus of Duke University every Friday afternoon for three minutes includes “Allahu Akbar”—the words that the terrorists shouted at the onset of last week’s massacre in Paris. It includes the proclamation that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Will evangelical Christians be allowed the same three minutes weekly to broadcast the message across campus that God Almighty of the Bible sent His Son Jesus Christ to offer forgiveness of sins and salvation to all who will repent, believe, and call on His Name? Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).”

In Matthew 7:4, Jesus asks us “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” Its time for us Christians to start owning up to the planks in our eyes and offering to stand in solidarity with and support our Muslim brothers and sisters. Have us Christians apologized for the 1600% growth of anti-Muslim hate crimes that occurred after 9/11? Have we apologized for the fact that I can easily walk around the streets of Boston wearing a crucifix, but my Muslim friends do not feel as safe in a hijab? Have we apologized for the Klu Klux Klan? Does Graham take into consideration that slave-owners would often shout Bible verses while brutally beating the African American men and women whose humanity they failed to recognize? “Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”

Jesus also told us that the two greatest commandments are “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Sadly, the cancellation of the Muslim call to prayer is just one example of how Christians have not shown neighborly love to Muslims.

Christians should not feel threatened by the adhan. Allahu Akbar means “God is greatest” or “God is great.” We may have different rituals and beliefs, but Allah is the same God as the God worshipped by the two other Abrahamic traditions, Christianity and Judaism, a loving, merciful God who is ultimately mystery. If God is mystery, and no humans words can fully capture the greatness that is God, this means we cannot limit where God manifests God’s self. By refusing to make space for the Muslim community, we miss out on learning how God has revealed God’s self in traditions other than our own. According to the Quran, “If God had so willed he would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues.” And as the late Dominican Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx said, “truth is not to be found in a system but in dialogue.” No one has a monopoly on truth.

Jesus was not on the side of the rich and powerful, but rather the lonely, the oppressed, and the misunderstood. Jesus did not listen to media soundbites, but rather he took the time to engage with the people he met, even those whom were hated by society. Jesus heard that Duke cancelled the Muslim call to prayer and Jesus wept.

Jesus weeping

If We Want Them To Talk, We Better Be Ready To Listen: Muslim and Christian Responsibility after Charlie Hebdo

Recent events in Paris have renewed the call for Muslims to speak out against radical, fundamentalist forms of Islam and publicly express their support for free speech. Such calls have sparked debate. Some, including Muslim scholars and thinkers, believe it is their responsibility to publicly denounce the barbarism in Paris and other attacks that have been carried out by radical Muslim individuals. Others, find such an obligation to be an unfair burden that serves to further marginalize and stereotype Muslims living in Western society. Why are they responsible for the actions of others speak in the name of Islam? Why are Christians, Jews, and others not called to do the same when members of their traditions commit acts of violence or discrimination?

To me, it seems that the problem lies in that Westerners want to have their cake and eat it too. We want Muslims to condemn radical Islam, but on our terms. Violence is tragic and its aftermath creates a state of panic and fear. It is comforting to think that radical Islam is the only problem, that condemnation of its fundamentalist branches will bring about a peaceful society.

In Fordham theologian Jeannine Hill Fletcher’s most recent article “Constructing Religious Identity in a Cosmopolitan World: The Theo-Politics of Interfaith Work,” she calls for the formation of a “cosmopolitan religious identity” as defined by sociologist Ulrich Beck. This is an identity in which people see their own past and history as being tied up with the concerns of those who are outside of our particular community. Hill Fletcher asserts that in the context of white, Christian dominance in US society, “my call as a White Christian theologian is to learn about the material and social struggles of my neighbors and to mobilize my tradition’s resources in a project that combats white supremacy and Christian hegemony.” This quote struck me as significant in the current debates about Muslim responsibility. If Christians are responsible for speaking out about the violence and oppression that occurs in the name of Christianity, then surely it would seem hypocritical to say that members of other traditions are off the hook. Both Muslims and Christians profess belief in a personal, loving, and merciful God, surely it is incumbent upon Muslims and Christians to protest injustice whenever and wherever it occurs.

However, that being said, if Christians want Muslims to vocally condemn acts of terror perpetrated by persons who call themselves Muslim, then we must be willing to listen! We have to let them use their own words and express their true feelings. In other words, the burden is not on them alone. Us Christians have to look inward and critique our own biases. We cannot tell Muslims to condemn terror, but continue to look negatively upon women who wear a hijab. We cannot tell Muslims to condemn terror, but forcefully fight against the building of a mosque in our town and cities. We must come to terms with our own imperfections and avoid the tendency to think that Western Christianity has a monopoly on truth or on solutions to contemporary social issues.

In closing this essay, I want to mention a Muslim hero, Ahmed Merabet, who died protecting the office of Charlie Hebdo. As the novelist Teju Cole has observed, “It is possible to defend the right to obscene… speech without promoting or sponsoring the content of that speech.” We can condemn the murder of the workers at Charlie Hebdo, while also condemning cartoons that are hurtful to the Muslim community, a community that has been subject to much violence and discrimination in the West post-9/11. I try to put myself in the shoes of devout Muslims, remembering how hurt I felt when a Satanic black mass was scheduled to take place in Harvard Yard and the beloved school where I received my masters degree, was going to do nothing to stop it. However, if those taking part in the Satanic mass had been violently attack, I would have been one of the first people upset and angry about it.*** The fact that the attack on Charlie Hebdo can never be justified does not mean we do not have an obligation to better friends to our Muslim neighbors.

So, yes, I do support calling on Muslims to condemn violence but when Muslims speak, we better listen and be willing to do our share.

*** Please note: I do not mean to imply that the situation that occurred at Harvard last year compares in any way to what happened in Paris. Nor do I mean to say that my experience as a Christian in the United States has been just as difficult as the experience of Muslims in the US and Europe (it most certainly hasn’t, and I must recognize my own white Christian privilege). I chose to mention this example in order to demonstrate how we can have empathy for those who are members of a tradition other than our own, and that if we believe our religion is worthy of respect, then we must believe the same about the traditions of others.

Resisting from the Inside: Cardinal Burke and Why I Won’t Leave the Catholic Church

“No! Not again!” That was all I could say as I looked at my computer on Friday morning, reading Cardinal Raymond Burke’s words about same-sex marriage in a recent interview. Here is an excerpt:

“We wouldn’t, if it were another kind of relationship — something that was profoundly disordered and harmful — we wouldn’t expose our children to that relationship, to the direct experience of it. And neither should we do it in the context of a family member who not only suffers from same-sex attraction, but who has chosen to live out that attraction, to act upon it, committing acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil.”

What do I say this time? I’m tired of making arguments that “this does not represent everyone in the Catholic Church.” I’m tired of telling people to just find parishes or communities that are more “progressive” and “do not share these views (while living in Boston, I have been fortunate to find such communities, but not everyone has).” I’m tired of quoting theologians. I’m tired of quoting the Gospel. Why? Because I think everyone is tired of hearing these same old defenses! Nothing I can say about Catholicism can take away the fact that sexism and homophobia are very prevalent realities in the church. Nothing I can say can take away the hurt that people feel over comments like those made by Cardinal Burke on Wednesday.

How do I defend my decision to not just leave the Catholic Church? I am not yet a mother, but I hope to be someday. While I am heterosexual, some very important people in my life identify as gay or lesbian- and these are people that I would want in my children’s lives from the very start- and this would not be for the sake of being “inclusive,” but rather simply because these are people that are smart, hard-working, funny, kind, and loving- qualities I want my children to have! What I want to shield my children from are comments like Cardinal Burke’s- I do not want them to see that even “holy men” can be cruel, I do not want them to see that sometimes when people are their truest selves, not everyone accepts them. As a Catholic who plans to remain such, I already have been struggling over what to I will tell my future daughter (if I have one) when she asks why there are no “girl priests.” How will I explain that its not allowed, that along with the modern media, the Catholic Church also will tell her that her body isn’t good enough, that it is not able to act “in persona Christi?” Furthermore, how will I show the people I care about that I really do reject the church’s teachings and statements regarding women, LGBTQ persons, and others who feel marginalized by the church? Am I not a hypocrite for remaining Catholic? Am I really resisting?

Then I happened to be reading God is New Each Moment, a series of interviews with Edward Schillebeeckx. Schillebeeckx, who died in 2009, was a Dominican priest who loved the church but was not afraid to criticize it, especially later in his life. When asked why he remains Catholic, he said “if all those who criticize the church leave it, the anti-biblical tendencies in the Church will simply be strengthened.” Using the example of Hans Kung,a Swiss theologian known for his rejection of papal infallibility, Schillebeeckx said, “What Rome would have liked most of all, I suspect, is that Hans Kung had become a Protestant…. But he continues as a Catholic and is a thorn in the flesh of the Catholic Church.”

While I certainly maintain that leaving the church is the right decision for many people, Schillebeeckx’s words reminded me that it is not the only way to resist. Resistance can come from within and in fact, resistance from within may at times prove even stronger. Cardinal Burke may not want to listen to the voices of LGBTQ Catholics and their allies. The pope may not want to hear women’s continuous calls for ordination. This does not mean we need to stop speaking! And as long as we keep speaking, the church is forced to acknowledge us, we are a “thorn in its side.” We are a constant reminder that there is an alternative, and although not everyone may want to help us bring it about, IT LIVES- it lives in the minds, and hopes, and dreams of the marginalized voices of the Catholic Church. Some ask, what good do small, progressive Catholic communities do? My answer, they do a lot. Simply by being present in the world, however small their presence may be, they say no to a vision of the Catholic Church that is exclusive of women, same-sex couples, divorced and remarried persons, and others. We may not have power to make formal rules like the magisterium does, but we do have the power to make words such as Cardinal Burke’s less powerful by saying “no” to their validity.