Bishop? Ordination?

I have various questions regarding your inclusion of an article on Sinead O'Connor's “ordination” by Bishop Michael Cox.

Why is Michael Cox referred to as Bishop? I understand that one can't undo the sacraments. No one can be unbaptized or unordained. But, if he is not in communion with the Church why is he still referred to as Bishop? or Father? Isn't that to give false testimony? Doesn't his Bishopry depend on the authority of the Church which he denies? Wouldn't it be more accurate not to use the word Bishop, or at least not to capitalize it?

Furthermore, if Michael Cox is acting on his own authority, then why is the ritual he performed on Sinead O'Connor called an ‘ordination’?

I am so tired with the priestesses issue, it's getting so old so fast! I find it sad that it should appear in your paper, although I do understand your duty to inform Catholics of such ridiculous nonsense. Perhaps you can write an article explaining the misleading and erroneous philosophy behind such a mock ordination, and reaf-firming the authority of the Church.

Maria Rivera via e-mail

Memorials to the Un born

I enjoyed your profile of Alan Napleton (“What I Did After I Came Alive,” Register May 23–29) and applaud his goal of erecting a memorial to unborn children in Mexico City.

I would like to remind your readers that since 1992 local Knights of Columbus councils throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines and the Caribbean have been building similar memorials to unborn children.

Records at the Supreme Council office in New Haven, CT, show that more than 1,500 memorials have been erected and many more are on the drawing boards. This has been a true grassroots phenomenon on the part of local K of C councils and is yet another manifestation of the Order's belief in the sanctity of life — born and unborn.

Tim S. Hickey Editor, Columbia magazine New Haven, Connecticut