sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (02/08/85)
Is there any interest in having an on-going discussion of some of the
current issues being raised in the Catholic Church? There are very few
postings I see in net.religion.* which treat such topics; whether this is
because we've all been done-in by Sr. Mary Ignatius, embarassment or lack
of interest, I don't know. Certainly there must be a large number of
Catholics (ex- or otherwise) on the net. Why the silence (Marchionni
and Terribile excepted)?
These are some of the topics which might be interesting to discuss:
o the role of women in the Church
o ecumenism
o Vatican II, and what it means today
o Magisterial teachings and individual conscience
o the Charismatic movement
o and much much more
As you can see, there is potential for some very interesting (and probably
non-flaming) discussions. Now, as to where this discussion should take
place, I'm proposing it happen here. The prospect of
net.religion.christian.catholic.roman
doesn't thrill me too much. What's more, it would be unfortunate if
the discussion took place aside from the mainstream, since I would
expect that other Christians would have important contributions to make
as well. On the other hand, if the volume got too great (this is
known as the sin of "presumption") it might make sense to move it
into a separate group. But I feel we can deal with this when we need to.
What do people think? Anyone want to start? If responses are positive,
I'll whip something up myself.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPAbarry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/08/85)
Speaking on the role of women in the Roman Catholic Church:
I have a sister studying at a Jesuit college in New Hampshire. As a
requirement, she is taking a course on th history of religion, taught by
a Roman Catholic priest. This priest has some very interesting revalations:
1. Mary Magdalen was indeed an Apostle, since Jesus sent her forth with the
others to "spread the word" (his definition of Apostle).
2. Since Jesus never ordained anyone into the priesthood, the assumption
that a woman cannot represent him is totally false, since he himself
chose one as emessary.
3. Therefore, the ruling not to ordain women into the priesthood is wrong
on a religious basis.
Not being a Catholic (or even a Christian for that matter), I have no idea what
most Catholics think about this. How about some response?
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/10/85)
Since Vatican 2, the RC Church has undergone a whole lot of changes. Since I am studying religion (though not Catholicism) in a big Catholic College/Divinity School, we get to talk about this a lot. This is a real ``liberal'' [as in wants to make lots of big, better, and sweeping changes to Catholicism in an attempt to regain what is believed to be lost] place, and every so often we get censored by the Cardinal, or one of the Bishops for going off the deep end, but this place keeps on chugging along... From the point of view of the average worshipper, though, the change has been quite overwhelming. Masses aren't in Latin any more. There is no altar rail. You can eat meat on Friday. Other Christians aren't really all damned. Communion can be received in the hand. Ecumanism is highly talked about, and encouraged. Now people are talking about ``liberation theology'' and ``the roles of women in the Church''. Really liberal places like here are talking about ``married priests'' and ``divorce in the Church'' and ``birth control'' and ``gays in the church''. It goes on and on... There has been a very fundamnetal change in attitude. In the old days people really walked around with models -- God is on top, and the Pope talks to God, and the Cardinals talk to the Pope who talks to God, and the Bishops talk to the Cardinals and the priests to the Bishops and the people to the priests... The upshot was a belief that salvation came, not from Jesus, but from *the Church*. In particular, Salvation came from God, through the clergy, and only god released in dribs and drabs to the people. This was lousy theology, but it was the popular belief. These days, Catholics get to talk about ``a personal relationship with God'' (gee! they sound like those sinning Protestants!) which means something very different than what it meant to ones grandparents. Liberal places like here think that this is more healthy and more correct. The leaders around here are pushing for the ordination of women and ecumanism and a host of other changes. Mostly, though, there is a lot of criticism. The main one goes `` the people are already freaked out by all the changes. Many are leaving the church because it was not the stable rock upon which they had been lead to believe that they could depend. The church changes, which makes it frightening for many people. Even if it is more correct to ordain women, we should not do it for X years since we will upset so many parishoners''. There is a strong attitude here to call these conservatives ``old fogies'' and dismiss them. However, you keep hearing reports of people convinced that the Vatican Council was the work of the devil to destroy the church and that these are the last days.... Just for information.... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (02/14/85)
[] The Apostles have traditionally been regarded as the first priests *and* the first bishops... If Mary Magdalen was an Apostle, then the strongest argument of principle against ordaining women to the priesthood falls to the ground. Not that it was very strong. My first thought is that the character of Mary Magdalen is somewhat of a composite in most people's minds. Consider the following characters in the gospels: the woman "taken in adultery;" the Samaritan woman who met Jesus at Jacob's Well; the woman who broke a vial of perfume, poured it over Jesus' feet, and dried them with her hair; "the other Mary" who watched at the Cross; Mary Magdalen, who saw the risen Christ in the Garden. Don't they all contribute to our idea of Mary Magdalen? How sure are we that any subset of these were the same woman? And there may be others; for some reason the manuals near my terminal do not include a New Testament, so I am going by memory. The statement that Mary Magdalen was a reformed prostitute comes, I think, from later, non-canonical "Gospels." All of this, to me, seems a shaky basis for anything like a juridical precedent. The issue, shall women be ordained priests, cannot be settled by precedent, because it was never asked until recently. We do have to settle it, and we are on our own. Speaking as a lay Catholic, I can see no reason of principle against it. I do understand that, as a practical step, it would be very complex, and would upset many. (Including many intelligent and devout women.) People are *very* conservative about religious practices. Look at the tumult over such things as the vernacular Mass - a trifling change by comparison. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853
jhs@houxa.UUCP (J.SCHERER) (02/14/85)
precident for women priests. Mary was not an Apostle. The Apostles were the twelve - minus Judas and plus his replacement - that Jesus appointed. These are regarded as the first bishops. Mary certainly seems to have been a disciple but there were many of those including many women (Mary and Martha, for example). They were followers of Jesus, presumably did a lot of good work, but had no special commission (other than that that all Christians have of spreading the Gospel). That's how I see it - am I off base? NOTE - I am not getting into whether women priests are right or wrong - just that Mary has nothing to do with it (I think). John Scherer Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/14/85)
In article <5053@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > Since Vatican 2, the RC Church has undergone a whole lot of changes. [Long list of fascinating changes ommitted.] This is rather interesting. As an apostate Catholic I don't see much of the liberal side. However, I do occaisionally see the EXTREME right wing... Every now and then, I intercept an issue of Michael Fighting; an extreme, conservative, French-Canadian, Catholic propaganda sheet. Their biggest hobby horse is Social Credit (a bizzare economic theory that makes supply-side theory believeable in comparison: they think the government should print money and give it to everybody, and then business will boom to meet the increase in demand.) Another is public schools, another is property tax (is church property taxed in Canada?), and another is television. They are so extreme, that they believe all the limbs should be covered. That may make sense in Canada.... Anyhow, I'm glad to hear that the RC church is reforming some of its archaic ways. Maybe they'll cause less misery that way. I view them as one of the lesser evils on the religious scene (at this time.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ptl@fluke.UUCP (Mike Andrews) (02/21/85)
It is important to point out that Laura's comments, and for that matter
my own, are just that - personal comments, not the official doctrine of
the Roman Catholic Church unless supported by official Church documents.
I'm a cradle Catholic. By far, most of what I learned in Church has
helped me be more the man God wants me to be. My teachers weren't perfect,
and neither was their student (me). The Church has changed a lot, quite
a lot. And most of the changes in my opinion are wonderful. The Church is
not perfect, as the people in it aren't. Some people, myself at times,
find it easier to blame the Church for the difficulties of life.
Quick to point out the imperfections of the people in the Church, so our
own imperfections don't overpower us. This is also true of most, if not
all, intradenominational squabbles.
I have a personal relationship with God, and pray others ask, seek and
knock for their own too. It's very hard work. I try to help where I
can, as God helps me through the Church, and my other Brothers and
Sisters in the other Christian denominations. It is wonderful, exciting,
painful at times, filled with tears and even anger toward God at times, as well
as an unbelievable Love for God. Not to mention the unbelievable Love
I'm learning how to accept directly from Him. It is really living life
the way God wants it. I'm really learning to Love. And He knows how hard it
is for me. And for you.
Please pray. Pray for yourself and for eachother. And for those
who are trying to hide from Him in pain, sarcasm, hate, ... .
God Bless us all, especially our families. Ever hear about Dr. Dobson?
Listen for him on your local Christian radio station. I know you'll
be Blessed.
Mike Andrews
--
*** Ps 16:2 Matt 7:12 Matt 7:13-14 ***
{decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver! \
{sun,allegra}! >fluke!ptl
{ucbvax,hplabs}!lbl-csam! /wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (02/25/85)
> Is there any interest in having an on-going discussion of some of the > current issues being raised in the Catholic Church? Certainly. As anyone who's read my posting on transubstantiation might guess (:-), I've been away from the Church for a number of years and my knowledge of changes in the Church since Vatican II are somewhat limited. I left the Church soon after high school (circa 1965), mainly because I was starting to question a lot of my beliefs. I had special difficulty with my perception of Roman Catholicism as a subculture rigidly controlled by the Catholic hierarchy. I still have these misgivings, but now consider myself a "doubting agnostic." I've been reading this group to find out why Christians of various flavors believe what they do, and would be especially interested in ANY discussions of current R.C. issues.