Transferring to Boston College ...

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Notre Dame
21

<p>"I consider being Catholic believing in the Eucharist, Bible, and Jesus’ teachings. If I differ from Catholic doctrine determined by older men (no female interest what so ever), then that is my choice."</p>

<p>It absolutely is your choice, but there are two things that stand out to me. First of all, you have quite a shot at our church leaders and I don't appreciate that. Regardless of that, however, it is your right to believe what you want...but are you Catholic. Who are you to determine over the Church's leaders what it is to be a Catholic? In my opinion a Catholic is a person who believes in Catholic doctrine, hence why they are a Catholic. If you don't agree with the church, then you are not Catholic. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong to disagree with the beliefs of the church, but by saying you are Catholic means that you believe certain things. Do you see what I am saying? Would I call myself Canadian because I have been to Canada, share some things in common with them, and consider myself to be one without having been born there or having citizenship? Something just doesn't add up with that argument.</p>

<p>"If you voted for Bush, I guess you are not Catholic because Bush went to war and the Church was against it."</p>

<p>The church never said that you had to be against the war. The pope was against the war but did not speak infallibly on this. It is up to the individual to decide if it was a just war or not, but that is not part of the Church's teachings hence you could be on either side of the fense and be alright. </p>

<p>"Having different opinions from the church is very different than having different opinions from the pillars of Catholicism."</p>

<p>Agreed, unless you are disagreeing with one of those pillars, in which case I am saying you shouldn't say you are Catholic. </p>

<p>"As a male, I think there is a clear need for female priests. Jesus couldn't have had a female Apostle because society would not have listened to him. Today, society is very different. Why not let a nun say mass?"</p>

<p>If you read the New Testament carefully you will see that Jesus was constantly breaking social norms. He dined with sinners, he cured sick on the Sabbath, he did a lot of things that would have made it so society wouldn't have listened to him as you say. Jesus was not one to care about social norms, he invited people to follow him and if they wouldn't or couldn't he moved on. As such, if he had wanted female priests I believe he would have had female apostles; society wouldn't have stopped him. If they would have he wouldn't have done half the things he did. </p>

<p>Granted, these are just my opinions. If you would like to debate them, feel free to get in touch with me. I don't wish to offend anyone, just telling you what I believe.</p>

22

<p>I respect your opinions and agree I perhaps should not have said some of the things I did about church leaders. Granted I am not a big fan of this Pope, but again I should not have said some of these things. </p>

<p>We are never going to agree on the man/woman debate. But I think some changes needed to be made in the Church. When 97% of European Catholics don't attend Church, there are some major problems and i don't think Pope Benedict is adressing them. I feel like he his just turning his head.</p>

23

<p>I overreacted to it some as well, so I apologize for that as well.</p>

<p>I have heard about Europe as well but the question is what is the goal of the church, and that is something that is debatable. There are plenty of good Catholics who agree with you, don't get me wrong, and this is a point of discussion. I agree with the new pope, however, in that we could use losing a few Catholics if they aren't going to church. The problem is that there are a lot of Catholics that aren't like you. You said you believe in the Eucharist, and I believe you, but a lot of people just don't know their faith or don't have the same beliefs now. The question is what is the most important issue; improving attendance or staying as close as you can to the original mission of the church. I would argue the latter, as I would prefer to have a smaller church that is more faithful (and the pope has said as much as well) but it sounds like you are more concerned with the fact that people are leaving the church, which is also a problem because what good is a church without members? It is a debate but it doesn't mean you are right or wrong depending on what side you are on.</p>

<p>My personal view is that the most important thing is staying true to the teachings of the church and then worry about attendance, but the most important thing is having a faithful church. </p>

<p>ANYWAYS, what do you think should be changed that would change that? Do you think female priests really would make a difference? What changes would you make? I am honestly curious and I promise that I will respect your thoughts.</p>

24

<p>Well Im pretty liberal, and living in Cincinnati, it is very tough to find a liberal parish</p>

<p>However, there are a few and I have found they have very good attendance among the younger crowds. Generally I like the upbeat Mass with music and some even have multimedia presenations. Now some people who are more traditional think this is making a spectacle of Jesus, but I view Mass as a celebration of Jesus. Why should mass be boring? All too often people are leaving after the Eucharist because they have other priorites and have lost interest. </p>

<p>Much of this is on the Priest, as some often drone on about very little points. But I think we need to revitalize the Church's youth. I attended Youth 2000 retreat here in Cincinnati and I thought it was great. Youth groups are great, but overall I think today's youth really has no interest in the Mass.</p>

<p>I do think adding female priests would be a good thing. I think it would change some of the views of the Church. Right now I think the church is very male oriented and often places women in the "traditional" role. I think female priests would bring different viees and more importantly, help solve the dwindling number of priests. Parishes all over the United States are shutting down because there are no Priests. </p>

<p>I realize this post was very convuluted. sorry about that</p>

25

<p>The Mass you are describing sounds a decent amount like a Life Teen Mass. I am not a big fan of multimedia presentations at a Catholic church but I don't have a problem with modern Christian music or some modern instruments at Mass as long as the liturgy is still done in an appropriate manner. </p>

<p>As for the female priests, I just view it as us not having the right to do so because Jesus didn't have any female apostles. JPII also did speak infallibly saying that there will never be female priests so that is really a non-issue because it now can't happen. Things would be different and I see how it could help the shortage of priests but I believe that God will provide. This is His church and he will shepherd it so that it will survive and we have survived far worse. I also know that there are still a lot of guys, especially at Notre Dame, considering the priesthood because I am one of them and I know many of those who are discerning. The numbers will get better in time. </p>

<p>I see your point that it is good to have a woman's point of view, especially in spirituality, but I just don't see how the Catholic church can have women priests since Jesus didn't have female apostles and the pope already spoke infalibly on it (sorry if I am mis-spelling infalibly).</p>

26

<p>I believe Jesus couldn't have had female priests because 2000 years ago, no one would have listened to a woman. The apostles spread the word, and I believe it would have been impossible for a woman to spread Catholicism during that era.</p>

<p>I think it is very admirable that you are considering the Priesthood. I know I could never do such a thing and feel I am destined for something else. By the way, here is one of the Parishes I was talking about:
<a href="http://www.good-shepherd.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.good-shepherd.org/&lt;/a>
And here is their description
<a href="http://www.good-shepherd.org/chu_overview.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.good-shepherd.org/chu_overview.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

27

<p>Liberalism is a Mental Dissorder. </p>

<p>You need to seek help and soon.</p>

28

<p>JoeySweets, I am guessing you are a fan of Michael Savage. I really enjoy his literature.</p>

29

<p>irish68178, it is admirable of you to consider the priesthood. I hope that you make the right desicion for yourself with God's help, no matter what decision that is.</p>

30

<p>I responded to Iskan in the Admissions forum earlier. This discussion has veered in a different direction, and I don't really want to get involved in it. </p>

<p>I just have to add this quote from Canadian bishops in 1968 talking about Catholics who disagree on the argument about contraception:
[quote]
Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered nor consider themselves cut off from the body of the faithful.

[/quote]
It seemed related to what one person (sorry, I forget the sn) was saying about being Catholic and disagreeing with certain Church stances.</p>

31

<p>lol, this thread has veered in many different directions! Sorry to the OP, but I hope you got the info you needed.</p>

<p>As for the female priests, I still disagree with the assertion you are making. If Jesus was worried about public opinion why would he cure sick on the Sabbath, call himself the Mesiah, call God his Father, be with the sinners, etc. Granted, having female apostles is breaking social norms and he may be called crazy, but they called him crazy for other things. Heck, calling God his father was considered blasphemy, and you really can't do worse than that in Jewish culture if you want to be listened to. Given that background, I still don't understand why he wouldn't have female apostles if he wanted them. Do you think many people wanted to listen to the man who all the church officials said was guilty of blasphemy? I am sorry, but I just don't see the argument that he couldn't have had them if he wanted them.</p>

32

<p>All true, Irish. Jesus was a rebel. He obviously could have cared less what people thought of him. On another point, if Jesus knew he was starting a church (which if you read the bible you obviously know this is true), and if he really believed men and women's roles should be the same in all areas, and that women <em>should</em> be priests, are you saying he'd start it off on such disparate footing?</p>

<p>Also - the Catholic church cannot and never has "created" doctrine. It only can publicly clarify something that has always been definitely held by the church (and passed down and "held fast what was taught you by word of mouth or by letter." The church isn't making new stuff up, it's just putting down on paper something the church has always considered true. So, even if any pope truly believed women should be allowed to be priests, if the early church never believed it, he can't just change that.</p>

<p>The protection of the church's protection in teaching Truth is a NEGATIVE protection. The entire deposit of faith was set down firmly when Jesus was assumed into heaven. Nothing new could be learned, only doctrine developed, which continued to happen in the early church (and, much more rarely, in the last few centuries). They were getting a lot down on paper then, including scripture and the eventual canon of the bible by around 400 AD. </p>

<p>So you really just aren't going to see this one (women priests) change. The new testament has a line that says, "The pillar and foundation of truth is the church." But which church?</p>

33

<p>It's important not to confuse liberal Catholicism (or pseudo Catholicism, actually) with upbeat and evangelical masses. If you've ever been to a retreat at Steubenville you would find a firm adherrance to Catholicism and at the same time the most vibrant and lively masses ever. I know people who attend Good Shepherd and they're just as Roman Catholic as the next guy.</p>

<p>I made a Cursillo retreat when I was around 36, and it changed my life. It doesn't matter what kind of a mass I'm at, I pray all the prayers, sing all the songs, and just love Jesus the whole time. You can be all that and still be a regular old Catholic. </p>

<p>And a parish can't profess beliefs other than what the Church teaches doctrinally and still call themselves Catholic. Well, they can call themselves whatever they want, but they would stand in great danger of being assigned a new pastor :)</p>

34

<p>You mean like Saint Joan of Arc "Catholic" Parish in Minneapolis? I am sure you have probably heard of them. I still don't know why the bishop hasn't just done away with them.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stjoan.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stjoan.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Also, a shameless plug but nonetheless if you want to talk about Catholic issues the best place I have found is <a href="http://forums.catholic.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://forums.catholic.com/&lt;/a>. Really, all of catholic.com is a great resource if you are curious about your faith or for any and all things Catholic.</p>

35

<p>But I would not feel so all alone... EVERBODY MUST GET STONED!</p>

36

<p>My late aunt, a Dominican Nun, was an unapologetic believer in the need for female priests. A recently retired Nun from from my parish felt the same. Were they bad Catholics? Of course not. They lived through the clergy crisis and they believed that women needed a stronger role in the governance of the parishes and the Church. As a "DNA Irish Catholic" I happen to agree.</p>

<p>Back to the subject of this thread. An excellent Catholic university with a broad appeal to consider is DePaul University in Chicago. It may not have the high ranking of ND or BC, but it is an excellent school with very caring professors. Not only is it located in a wonderful "liberal" section of Chicago, but it is said to have some of the happiest students in the country.</p>

37

<p>If you are looking to challenge your beliefs and strengthen them after the challenge, consider BC, Georgetown or Holy Cross. you will find the Jesuits are the most intellectual of all the orders and the most socially aware (primarily the younger ones as they usually become more conservative as they age==but they are notable exceptions). They run about 30 schools across the US. Fordham, University of San Francisco, Loyola Chicago, New Orleans, etc. St. Louis, while run by Jesuits, is really a conservative city so that colors the perception of the school. You may want to consider Marquette in Milwaukee as I understand its Theology Dept has some very interesting and challenging teachers. Many of their schools other than their top 3 are commuter schools and are colored by the area in which they're located.
You should be much happier at BC. Good luck.
Stay away from the Dominicans, Benedictines and the Franciscans.
Another DNA Irish Catholic.</p>

38

<p>As someone who has been through 5 years (yes, 5) of Jesuit education I would have to warn you a bit about this. Will they test your faith, yes, I think that is true. However, I have also known many Jesuits that teach things that are not part of the Catholic faith even though they claim that it is part of the Catholic faith. This is not just limited to the Jesuits, however, but there are also several professors at Notre Dame that do the same (see McBrien). </p>

<p>So where am I going? BE CAREFUL!!! There are plenty of schools and professors that will test your faith, and that is fine and dandy, but please also understand what you believe. I think the most dangerous thing you can have is someone who doesn't really know their faith in a class with Fr. McBrien because they have a very good chance of coming out not understanding their faith.</p>

<p>These professors are good at testing what your beliefs are and they will give you alternative ideas but make sure that what they say Catholicism is is actually what it is. Also, if you say you are Catholic, make sure you really are. It isn't bad if you aren't, what you believe is up to you, but I do think that if you choose to label yourself it should be accurate (which is only fair to not only yourself but also the believers of that faith). </p>

<p>My bottom line is....there are professors out there that may make you question what you believe and may change your beliefs, but just really be sure that what they say is true and also know that you may not be Catholic at the end of it and that is okay. I respect those who admit that they may not be Catholic anymore much more than those who pretend to be, but that is just me.</p>

<p>Okay, enough of my rant.</p>

39

<p>I can't see my handy quote button but daaaaad said the following </p>

<p>"My late aunt, a Dominican Nun, was an unapologetic believer in the need for female priests. A recently retired Nun from from my parish felt the same. Were they bad Catholics? Of course not. They lived through the clergy crisis and they believed that women needed a stronger role in the governance of the parishes and the Church. As a "DNA Irish Catholic" I happen to agree."</p>

<p>They were not bad Catholics because that issue is not a part of doctrine so you can be a good Catholic and can disagree. It is like the Iraq war, you can disagree and still be alright. It is important to know that you can debate these issues, but where it gets murky is when you talk about doctrine. If you don't believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist then you are not Catholic because that is part of Catholic doctrine and something that makes Catholics Catholics. That being said, there are a lot of debates that are fine to have.</p>

<p>As you guys know, some Theology professors and honestly some orders of priests make me nervious because I think they step over the line between their opinion on certain issues and saying things about doctrine. I don't want to stifle the debate; the debate is good and necessary....but there are some things that either make you Catholic or not and it is important to know about those and to just be honest about where you fall on those issues.</p>

<p>Big picture: debate is good (mostly).</p>

40

<p>Irish, you're actually wrong on that. In 1996 Pope John Paul II came out and formally stated that it is in the Deposit of Faith that the priesthood is reserved for men only. </p>

<p>Now as I know <em>you</em> know, the protection of the church to teach the truth is a NEGATIVE protection - in other words, the church (popes, cardinals, bishops) can't make up new doctrine just because they think it's a good idea. It has to be something that's always been definitely believed by the faithful of the church. In 1850 the church definitively clarified the assumption of Mary, but it wasn't made up at that time - it was always believed. Same with the inclusion of the apocrypha in the official canon - it was always in the Catholic scriptures since the collection was officially approved around 400 AD, but when Luther took it out, it then needed to be defined. I've had protestants tell me they think we "added" the apocrypha in the 1600's, but that's a confusion of the truth.</p>

<p>So even if the Pope thought it was just and fair and correct for women to be priests, he can't just go adding that when there is NO historical evidence that at the time the Deposit of Faith was completely laid down (Christ's assumption into heaven), or even in the early years of the church, that women would serve in that position. He just doesn't have the authority to do it.</p>