Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:45:13 GMT

Again, this is a long posting which attempts to respond to several others.

JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh) writes:

>On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:51:12 GMT John DiMarco said:
>>The church must conform to the will of God. The church cannot "change the
>>rules" unless she knows that it is God's will to do so. Popular opinion
>>has no bearing on this: if every person believed women should be ordained,
>>and God didn't, the Church would be obliged to follow God's will.

>How does the Church know the will of God? From the Scriptures, from
>tradition and from prayer (ie, through the Spirit). If the Church, which
>is after all the People of God, trusts that the people which compose the
>Church are Spirit-filled people, then it must take seriously something
>that 98% have come to understand, after prayful reflection, to be true.

You misunderstand me. My statement was quite simple: the church must follow
the will of God, regardless of popular opinion, however strong.

But you raise a good point, namely: if popular opinion is overwhelmingly 
onesided (eg 98%), doesn't this mean that this is probably the will of God? 

Not necessarily! The church is not just the people of God (i.e. the "sum of
the parts"). The church is more than that; in particular, the church includes
the magisterium: the teaching authority of the pope and bishops. In fact,
the organ of the church which maintains her teachings is the magisterium. 
Thus Christ's promise to guide the church by the Holy Spirit and preserve her
from error applies - in the case of church teaching - to the magisterium. Not
to the majority opinion of the people of God, which is something different. 


Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM> writes:

>jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:
>> 1. It implies a revelation after the death of the last apostle. Sorry,
>> this is just completely contradictory to the way the church works. And
>> the church works that way for good reason: God isn't going to contradict
>> his own Christ-revelation by some innovation.
>
>On the other hand, the Church has confirmed that not all of that revelation
>was made immediately apparent at the time; that is to say, that our human
>understanding of the deposit of faith unfolds and is elaborated as time goes
>by.  Vatican II is probably the most visible example of this trend in action
>in recent times, but it has been going on throughout the history of the
>Church.

True. But while the doctrine need not be fully developed at the beginning,
it needs be there, in embryonic form at least. Where is it? Where are the
women apostles? Where are the women priests in the early church? In the
patristic age? In the middle ages? Anywhen?

>> 2. It implies God is the impetus behind the modern women's movement. I
>> find the modern women's movement's current general attitude towards God
>> and his church seems to suggest the contrary.
>
>Perhaps you have a different impression of the "women's movement" than I do.
>I certainly would say that the growing respect for and acceptance of women
>(and other historically disadvantaged classes of people) derives ultimately
>from God.  This seems clear from its results.  Satan tends not to encourage
>greater love for our fellow men and women, nor does he often tempt us to
>break down the walls of fear and prejudice that stand between us...

While growing respect for and acceptance of women may derive ultimately from
God, modern feminism is much more than this. 

Jesus told us to recognize a tree by its fruits.  I'm troubled by the promotion
of abortion, the derogation of childbearing and childraising, the promotion of
lesbianism, the expression of hatred for the Catholic church, and similar
practices widespread in the modern feminist movement. I would expect a movement
inspired and influenced by God to be characterized more by holiness and the 
fruits of the Holy Spirit.


andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>The fact that not enough men are being called to the priesthood. How many
>parishes in Europe and North America, even once fervent Quebec are without
>parish priests. Why would God not call enough men to the priesthood unless
>it was because He was calling enough women to meet the shortage?

My guess is that he calls more than enough men, but not enough answer the call. 
Arguing for women priests on the basis of a priest shortage isn't convincing.


tas@PEGASUS.COM (Len Howard) writes:

>John, I am slightly confused by your answers regarding women in the
>priesthood.  You at one point say that all the apostles are dead, so
>there can be no more revelation, and in another point say we are to be
>guided by the Holy Spirit.

Amanda makes this a little clearer in her reply. Basically, it works like
this: the revelation to the church ended with the death of the last apostle.
But not all teachings were made explicit, some were embryonic, and are made
explicit by the church (guided by the Holy Spirit, of course) later as the 
need arises (eg. the trinity). 

So: the origin and core of a given teaching needs to be in the apostolic
revelation, but it need not be fully developed there. 

My response to Amanda's point is above.

>    If you will remember the prophets, they were people who were
>telling their society, kings and church the word of God as they had
>been given it.  Most times the recipient of the message did not want
>to hear it or was made very uncomfortable by hearing it.

In most cases, for every genuine prophet, there were many false prophets who
claimed God's message was whatever society wanted to hear. If a message's
unpopularity and "uncomfortable-ness" is a measure of its divine origin, 
surely the magisterium's position qualifies much better than the feminist one. 

>    Is it not possible that the feminine theology movement is a
>prophetic one, and represents the action of the Holy Spirit.  I
>believe the Holy Spirit works in the Laos as well as the Clergy, and
>IF the time ever came that 98% of the laity accepted the idea of women
>priests, I submit that may well be the prophetic word of God being
>spoken.

Unlikely, for the two reasons I mentioned in the post you're replying to.

>    There is a striking parallel in the juxtaposition of Jesus as the
>Pharasees in the first century, and the feminine theologians and the
>Majestirium in the end of the twentieth century.
>    In order to receive the Word of God, one must listen with the ears
>of faith, not keep ones mind closed to other possibilities.  If your
>mind is closed you will never discern the Word of God as presented in
>the twentieth century.

You seem to be trying to set up feminists as a new Christ, and their
teachings as the Word of God. If you want to follow a new "gospel", you're
free to do so, but please don't call it Catholicism. 

Finally:

"Brian Tillman" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM> writes:

>Gordon Zaft (zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org) writes:

>>Women wishing to be priests does not equate to women being called by God to 
>>be priests.
>
>Men wishing to be priest does not equate to men being called by God to be
>priests, yet the church treats it as such.

The church does not treat a wish to be a priest as sufficient evidence of
a call by God to the priesthood. 

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU