Msg Base:  AREA 3  - ASK FATHER (AMDG)
  Msg No: 191.  Sun 12-13-92 18:14  (NO KILL)
    From: Father Mateo
      To: Dave Mueller
 Subject: Galileo and Girls

DM|Hi, Father.  Heard about you in This Rock.  A couple of questions for you
  |today.  Could you please give a short summary of what really happened in
  |the Galileo case?  The secular newspapers don't tell the real truth.  Also,
  |is the Church prohibition of altar girls a disciplinary or a doctrinal
  |matter?  Thanks a lot, Father.
 
Dear Dave,
 
We are still waiting for a clear signal from Rome about altar girls.
Father Joseph Farraher, formerly the answerman for "Homiletic and
Pastoral Review" suggests that at present, if a parish uses altar
girls, it may continue to do so; but if there are no altar girls at
parish services, the practice should not be introduced.  The matter of
altar girls is one of liturgical law, not doctrine.  Personally
(repeat personally), I cannot see any reason for excluding girls from
altar service.  She who may do the greater, should also be allowed to do
the less, viz., since it is certainly permitted to women to handle
the Eucharist in giving Holy Communion, they should also be permitted
to handle cruets, towels, and books -- which is all that altar servers
do nowadays.  However, this is not a matter of logic or of my feelings
but of liturgical law, and we are presently waiting for decisive
clarification of the law.
 
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (vol. 6) presents a 6-page summary of
the Galileo case, far too long to present on this net.  Perhaps
(hint!) some zealous user or sysop may obtain permission, type out
the NCE article and upload it for our readers.
 
Meanwhile, I'll set down three brief passages from the article:
 
"Cardinal (Bellarmine) explained that one is not allowed to interpret
ths Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the Fathers of the
Church, and the Fathers seemed to interpret the texts in question
literally (Joshua 10:12-13, Psalm 103:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5).  To
contradict their exegesis was to oppose the truth of Scriptures
themselves."
 
"Bellarmines' opinion was wrong on several counts. First, he should
have remembered that as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas had said
long before, the Bible was not intended to teach science, and
therefore its authority should not be invoked in scientific disputes.
Second, though most of the Fathers did think that the earth was
immobile and the sun moved, not one of them held that this had to be
believed as a revealed truth.  Third, though it is true that common
interpretation by theologians of a text whose meaning is not defined
makes that interpretation highly probable, there is still room for an
alternative, if less probable, exegesis." (page 253).
 
Of Galileo's first condemnation (March 5, 1616), NCE says "The
actions of the Holy Office and the Congregation of the Index in no
way represented a commitment of the infallible teaching authority of
the Church against the new astronomy. The decree of the Index
received papal approval only *in forma communi* and therefore was
only the fallible decision of a Roman congregation" (pages 253-254).
 
Of his second condemnation (1633), NCE says: "The condemnation
was the act of a Roman congregation and in no way involved
infallible teaching authority.  But the theologians' treatment of
Galileo was an unfortunate error; and, however it might be explained,
it cannot be defended" (page 254).
 
                                        Sincerely in Christ,
                                                Father Mateo
 
 
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Cry out with joy and gladness;  for among you
                is the great and Holy One of Israel.
 
.ORIGIN: 043/001 - THE ANGELUS,      -the Word became flesh                     
                                and made his dwelling among us -                
            Catholic Information Network #2, Los Altos, CA (415) 967-3420