I have read in what I think is Bobbie Mickens's organ that "Most progressives, reformers, and Vatican II types ... are deeply disappointed [by the Amazon Exhortation]".
He goes on to say that the "women are hurt and angry".
I don't think, however, that all women are Hurt and Angry. I looked carefully at my Wife and a visiting Daughter today, and they didn't look at all H&A. I think I can usually tell when they are. It requires a form of discernment which starts off when a chap is a toddler and needs to spot if and when Mummy is H&A. One hones these skills throughout one's life, aided, eventually and if it is still necessary, by one's granddaughters or great granddaughters. Perhaps Mickens hasn't spent long enough with women.
Or perhaps mine are not the right sort of women. Frankly, I would have to admit that they show no signs of thinking at all about Vatican II. They seem more interested in Life. But far be it from me to hint that "Vatican II women" are likely to be humourless crones. Mickens probably knows best after all those long years spent working for The Tablet.
I, HOWEVER, AM HURT AND ANGRY.
Last Wednesday evening, I penned a post about the Post-Synodal Exhortation. I drew particular attention to the passage in which PF explicitly declared that the Eucharistic President needs to be male. Since the 'Ordination' of Women is unmistakeably the ultimate ambition of "progressives and Reformers", these words appeared to me to be a confirmation of the teaching of S Paul VI (Inter insigniores) and, particularly, of S John Paul II in his Ordinatio sacerdotalis, which Rome declared to be an expression of the Infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
This may seem to some readers a matter of slight importance compared with the agonies of all these married viri probati we keep hearing about, and the exact nature of 'diaconal' women.
I think it is important, and so will the rest of you, believe me, in a decade or two as the campaign for Women 'Priests' continues and accelerates. And becomes even more viciously shrill. Shrill? You don't yet know what that word means.
In particular, on Wednesday I asked for information about the meaning of the terms used for "man" in the various languages in which the Exhortation is available ... particularly Arabic, Polish, and Chinese (Paragraph 101). Apart from a kind hispanophone: I got zilch.
Anthropos or aner? Homo or Vir?
Nobody seems to want to help me. Can it be that many fellow-traditionalists are only interested in the words of PF when those words confirm their opinion that he is a hopeless heretic? Do some people in fact suffer disappointment when he actually behaves as a pope should ... as a remora or obstacle against innovation and error?
The campaign for women 'priests' will be relentless. Is it nothing to many Traditionalists that PF has struck a blow for Tradition? That he has placed a marker in his 'Magisterium' which it will that bit more difficult for Francis II to circumvent?