From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.133853.5241@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>In article <CATHOLIC%92111101244678@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>>
>>Back when we were debating abortion, and the candidates' positions on
>>equating it with murder, I said that laws cannot be imposed without an
>>acceptance of the reasons for the law. People have a tendency to ignore
>>laws they see as having no basis. Examples I cited at the time were the
>>Prohibition (and that was a constitutional admendment!) and speed limits.
>
>Your statement about ignoring laws seems to apply to all laws-- that's why
>we have criminals.
>
>>I would propose that church "laws" (or General Instructions or whatever)
>>must be held to the same standard. If you say "women cannot step over
>>this line" there must be some reason given which is accepted by the
>>people involved. It's not good enough to say "because I said so". That's
>>not working for the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, and it won't work to
>>keep the women out of the sactuary either.
>>
>>I don't think your statement that the prohibition is "related to the
>>priestly nature of serving at the altar" is sufficient. Can you come up
>>with a better reason which will be accepted by the people? Even the
>>average Catholic? Perhaps if the Church would actually explain some of
>>her rules (rather than relying on "because I said so") the rules would be
>>better accepted. Without explanation, I think most people see them as
>>silly... or worse.
>>
>
>You talk an awful lot about what the Church is obliged to do here.  I think
>it can be a good thing for the Church to explain its laws and 
>disciplines, but I don't think it *has* to.  But while talking alot about
>what the Church has to do in this regard, you say nothing of what the
>individuals within the Church have to do in response.  What responsibilities
>do you see individual faithful Catholics as having, even if the Church does
>not provide an explanation, given that it is the Church's right and
>responsibility to administer the sacraments?

I correct my own posting.  You say that "most people see them as silly... or
worse."  *Most* seems like an awfully strong term here.  But in the great
concern for whether the Church is providing sufficient justification for the
rules and disciplines it imposes in the areas that it has the authority to
and responsibility to do so, you say nothing of this attitude on the part
of the individual Catholic.  Which of these two is worse:
1) The Church does not always give explanations and justifications for
each and every rule or discipline it legislates in those areas it has the
authority and responsibility to legislate in, and when it does those 
explanations and justifications are not universally accepted by the 
each and every last one oe the 800,000,000 Catholics worldwide.
or
2) An individual Catholic maintains the attitude that unless the Church 
provides me with a justification that I accept, its rules and disciplines
or at least the rule or discipline under consideration is "silly... or worse."

As an individual Catholic, whose responsibility does not extend to legislating
rules and disciplines for the administration of the Sacraments, I am concerned
with what the individual Catholic ought to do, what his or her responsibilities
are.  So I find the second much worse than first.

Peace,
John

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic