>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:35:10 -0400
>From: Tom Conry <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-MOENE  (Win95; U)
>To: "George R. Hoelzeman" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Invitation: New list
>
>I am Catholic myself and I simply disagree with your assertions.

this was all that was necessary to say - an acceptable disagreement.  What
assertations, BTW?  Why do you disagree?  What can you cite to substantiate
this disagreement?  How is your religious affiliation pertinent? 

>
>It is easy for me to see from your censorious attitude why you got the boot.
>

sorry, dude - I didn't get the boot.  In fact, I never never entered into
any of the discussion - simply remained a lurker in the shadows.  I
realized the bias in the group, which promoted itself as unbiased and
decided not to continue my association with the group.  If you examine
their list records, you will find this is the case.

It is also always refreshing to know that ad hominem attacks are alive and
well.  Besides, it sounds as though you'd like my "censorious attitude"
censored.  Naughty, naughty, bad, evil, wicked George!  
>
>
>George R. Hoelzeman wrote:
>
>> First, Canon 1024 prohits the ordination of women in the Catholic Church.
>> This is a Catholic issue which is officially closed by the only authority
>> in the Catholic Church which has the ability to decide to ordain women.
>

My apologies if this seemed strident.  It is, however, a statement of fact
as one other individual in this group posted.  My point is that when
discussing theology or liturgy, there is a certian respect required from
those who enter the discussion in order to achieve reasoned conlusions or
to share knowledge and expression of Faith.  This statement reflects the
official postion of the Catholic Church on this matter.  One can disagree
with the closure, but not the fact of its existence.  The authority
structure of Catholicism is an integral part of its self-definition and
understanding.  If one wishes to reject that structure, that is one thing,
but to deny its essential nature or existence is somewhat delusional - i.e.
not based in the reality of Catholic theology or liturgical thinking.  

If one wishes to pursue this issue from a doctrinal or liturgical
standpoint (and I could see an opportunity for discussion even here) that
is one thing.  But to presume that the Church will actually alter what is
considered a closed issue (both in Catholicism [Eastern and Western] and in
the Orthodox Churches) based on a methodology which is contrary (again) to
that Church's self-understanding, seems to me a bit futile.  

Anyone who knows me will appreciate that I am always willing to discuss
matters on any topic as long as due respect and intellectual approach is
maintained (which I was given to understand is also the policy of this
list).  Ad hominem attacks solve little.  In a society in which it often
seems that the means to winning an arguement is to be the first to call an
opponent a vicious name (racist, heretic, censorious, liberal,
conservative, Ken Starr, etc.) it hardly  becomes us in this list,
concerned as we are with such an essential aspect of the spiritual life to
descend into the same septic pit.

Well, now I have more invested than perhaps I should... =8-))

GRH



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%