HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com (Donna Nitchie)
Subject: Re: Question about divorce
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:46:14 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

Ted, by now you've probably gotten more advice from all angles than you 
expected, but here's another opinion.

You mentioned that the situation was affecting _you_. So you did half the
work and mentioned it to your dad. Perhaps, as difficult as it may be, you
could approach your mom about _your_ feelings. I think it's premature to
advocate an action if you haven't given your mom a chance to address 
_your_ feelings.

Notice I keep focussing on _your_ feelings. There are two issues here:
1) _your_ feelings about this situation (how their marriage affects you) and 
2) your parents' feelings about their marriage & communication situation. 
Keep the two clearly identified.
The first is primarily your responsibility. The second is theirs, although
you may be involved or able to help (as a catalyst).

Your dad has to deal with _his_ feelings. I'm sure there are so many
psychological factors involved here that
leads an individual to a course of action. Personal searching, counseling,
etc can help an indivudual sort things out, but ultimately one has to make
his own decisions. 

For example, I was always obese. As much as my loving family tried to help
and advise me to loose weight, to correct this unhealthy situation they 
saw I was putting myself into, they could not do it for me. Sure I wanted
to be healthy and thin, but something else inside me didn't want to do what
it took to get & stay thin. So with much prayer, self-acceptance, and not
giving up on myself, eventually I confronted my situation and did it (with
much invaluable medical help and counselling along the way.) And I continue 
to struggle w/ the tendencies. habits, etc, that I developed over those 
20+ years before I did loose it. 
 
My parallel to your dad's situation is this: sure, he may want to change
his home life situation, but something inside him may not want to do what it
takes at this time. Your advising him to take a stand may push him into
something he's neither ready for nor wholly committed to probably wouldn't 
work in the long run anyway. Finding a way to stand up for himself may be
a lifelong task for him, as maintaining my weight is for me.

So what can you DO to help him? Love him, support him, accept him & his choices
for now (as my family did with me, despite their disapproval), and always
encourage him to seek for higher love, of himself, your mother, and you.

Note that I also believe that some good came from my history of obesity, as
frequently unpleasant as it was. Since I believe in a loving God, I have to
look at what I went thru as making me more sensitive to others' feelings, to
addictions and descrimination in all forms, etc. The alternative is to blame 
God for making me or allowing me to be weak regarding food.... But I firmly 
believe God ONLY LOVES, wherever we find ourselves. 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Question about divorce
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:05:07 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Nov6.191527.28028@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>Please help me with a problem I'm having.
>What should I do in this situation?  Feel free to pray that I do the
>right thing.

Before suggesting such a drastic step as divorce, why not suggest a separation?
The Church accepts separation as a valid and good means undertaken for the sake
of a marriage.  Before he pursued such a course, your father should seek    
pastoral counseling.  Don't go too fast.
Peace,
John
From: joel@MSC.EDU (Joel Neisen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:25:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu) write:

> Actions are not, in themselves, sinful.
I agree 100%.
At a seminar I attended an example of a person going to
Africa to preach the gospel might be committing sin
(because God may have had another calling for that person).

> but the ultimate decision on whether an act is sinful is between the
> person commiting the act and God.
again yes,  I see this as very scriptural.

>  The sin enters because of the
> context of the action and the mental state of the participant(s).
here is where I disagree.  I think this definition is too weak
and doesn't even include God !   Since I disagree, I am bound now
to provide a much better  :-)  definition.
Sin is when we act contrary to the will of God.

There are components to the will of God that apply universally
to all of His creation, there are others that only apply to
us as individuals (the difference between 'logos' and 'rama' (sp),
or am I using these incorrectly).

Jerry Bridges has a couple of books that I think address
the concept of sin, our response to God, etc.
(Ok, ok, He's not catholic, but I thought the books were
excellant)

joel
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Sunday, 8 Nov 1992 01:12:04 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Faculty and Student Pro Life Organizations


The other day I posted an item about faculty and student pro-life
organizations on several lists.  On another list someone else posted
this followup:

    I would like to include in his list:

        Collegians Activated to Liberate Life
        1605 Monroe Street, Suite 107
        Madison, Wisconsin 53711
        phone: (608) 238-5262
        FAX: (608) 238-4969

    This is a really small group of 6 college students who have taken
    their junior/senior year off to help with networking college
    right to life groups together.  The former president of Indiana
    University's Students for Life, Lorraine Jamieson, a good friend
    of mine, is one of the students working there.  They are primari-
    ly for the Midwest, but they hope to be nationwide someday.  This
    is the first year for the CALL program, and all the students
    literally live in the CALL offices, to save money. CALL publishes
    a newsletter called _The_Trumpet_, free for college students, and
    $15/yr for others. The members do an extensive amount of rescu-
    ing, having been arrested many times.  They travel from place to
    place, giving talks at high schools and colleges whenever they
    can.  I'd really recommend contacting this group and supporting
    them in any way you can, financially, or if you're poor like me,
    through prayer.  They feel that the only way to rid the country
    of the evils of abortion and all the other problems that arise
    in dealing with family life is to start up such a movement among
    college students and people, in union with the churches.  Another
    exciting thing is that most of the 6 CALL members are orthodox
    Catholics.

    Anyway, please pray for them and contact them if you like.  If
    you speak with Lorraine, tell her that Jay sent you!  ;-)

I corrected a few apparent typos in the above.

Marty Helgesen
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 5 Nov 1992 12:44:23 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5

In article <921105091054.28e3c727@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
says:
>
>Marty writes:
>>The objection to ordaining women is not that it would cause the
>>Church's downfall, it is that women cannot be ordained.
>
>I know, Marty, never ever, ever never, never ever, ever never, never ever,
>ever never, never ever.............:-)
>
>Well some of us don't believe in never ever land:-) -J.J

Some people don't believe in God.  I do.

Some people who believe in God do not believe that He became a man
in Jesus Christ and died on the Cross for our sins.  I do.

Some people who believe in the deity of Jesus do not believe that He
founded the Catholic Church as His church to teach the truths He
revealed and to administer the sacraments He instituted in His name.
I do.

Incidentally, the main point of my original posting was that your
suggested "scientific experiments" were irrelevant.  They would still
be irrelevant even if women priests and homosexual marriages were
possible.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm   mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:32:07 GMT

In article <921105091054.28e3c727@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>Marty writes:
>>The objection to ordaining women is not that it would cause the
>>Church's downfall, it is that women cannot be ordained.
>
>I know, Marty, never ever, ever never, never ever, ever never, never ever,
>ever never, never ever.............:-)
>
>Well some of us don't believe in never ever land:-) -J.J

I don't know J.J., your belief that the Church has the authority to decide this
question seems to live in never ever land.  So believing as you do that 
something lives in never ever land, it seems that you are contradicting 
yourself by denying that there is a never ever land where your belief lives.
:-)
Peace,
John

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: A=RC squared
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:59:15 GMT

In article <9211041402.AA19004@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> "John R. Covert 04-Nov-1992
0845" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:
>* Leonardus K. Yuwono  * Internet: 98yuwono@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu *
>wrote:
>
>>Anglo-Catholics to my understanding is the church of
>>St. Thomas More, St. Edmund Campion and his fellow jesuits(yes
>>they are good Jesuits).
>
>Nope.  It's not a church; it is a movement within the worldwide Anglican
>Communion, started about 150 years ago by John Henry Newman.  It does not
>seek to split the Anglican Communion; it seeks to witness to the Catholic
>Faith within the Anglican Communion.  It is sometimes called "High Church",
>but it is much more than just that.
>
The credit for starting the Anglo-Catholic movement should not go to Newman, 
but to John Keble, who started what is called the Oxford Movement (or 
Tractarian movement). Newman joined at the beginning, but eventually found his 
way into the Roman Catholic Church, while Keble never did. The Oxford movement 
emphasized the works of the early Church Fathers, the episcopacy, apostolic 
succession, sacramental life as oppsed to the more Protestand emphases present 
within Anglicanism; e.g., presbyteral or congregational government, emphasis on
the word. The Oxford movement had an enduring effect in the new attention given
in some parts of Anglicanism to Catholic elements of Tradition, especially in 
liturgy.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:09:49 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Hello, everyone. Airing dilemmas, too.

Hello, Angelo, and welcome to the list. It seems this list is starting
to be a list of physics alumni:-) I suppose I can best describe myself
to you as one of those liberal, feminist type catholics you keep running
into. So we can agree to disagree from the start:-)
My question to you is, 'why do you feel you need to justify the Church's
position on the ordination of women to non-Catholics'? Do you actually
believe that Christianity will end if the tradition of the all male
priesthood is relaxed? Sometimes I feel that people are willing to
live with injustices just for the security/stability it brings to
them personally. This is not directed at you, per se, but more at the
attitude that ordination of women in the Church would be like the
death of a family member. -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:45:54 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992, (Stephen Barr) wrote:

>     Dear Andrew, You ask how God could be offended by
> love of any kind. He isn't. The question is rather
> whether it is right to express every kind of love
> sexually. Not only Christians, or religious people,
> but the vast majority of people would say that certain
> kinds of love should not be sexually expressed. For
> example, love for one's mother, father, child, sibling,
> pet dog, friend's wife, to mention just a few. This
> would even be regarded as so in these cases if there were
> consent.

If a 21-year-old daughter is mutually in love with her father, I do not
have a problem with them having a relationship--sexually or otherwise.  A
dog, or a minor, cannot be consensual...or cannot be evaluated to be so.

> Now you may not share this view. But if you
> were to concede that sexual expression is morally
> appropriate only for certain kinds of love, then you
> would be about 9/10 ths of the way to the Christian
> position.

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from so far.

>     The Christian view is that sex, by the design of
> the Creator and by the very nature of sex itself, is
> about mating. That is, it is about forming a bond
> between a male and female that is stable and loving
> and exclusive. Such a relationship is the desirable one
> for the nurture of children. The sex act both expresses
> the kind of love appropriate to that union and strengthens
> it. Also the sex act has to do with the joining of
> sperm and ovum. To repeat: the very structure of the
> act, the very meaning of maleness and femaleness have
> to do with mating, and forming families.

But how do you know this is so?  The prostate is sexually stimulatable.
Can you explain this?

> If there is nothing unnatural about homosexual
> activity, why do many people feel revulsion at the
> thought, just as they do at the thought of, say, incest?

This would be an intriguing argument, except for the basic fact that those
of us who are totally gay (meaning we have no sexual attraction for the
opposite sex whatsoever), sex with the opposite sex...heterosexual
activity, as you might call it...makes US feel revulsion.

And yet we don't call it unnatural.

Or are we declaring things unnatural by democratic vote?

> Is it merely social conditioning? Examining my own feelings
> as a child, I think not. Many young boys worry at a
> certain age about their sexuality. Why do they worry?
> Not just because of the disapproval of others. Having
> been through that stage of growing up I do not believe
> that social conditioning is the whole story. Steve.

I did not worry.  I just discovered.  I started worrying a couple years
after I discovered.  I started worrying BECAUSE of social conditioning.
We are taught as children just how sick and perverted those faggots are.

Happyfag!  Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Relatives of Mars
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:28:24 GMT

jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
> ...   How is the Mars Observe going on its silent solitary 
>way?  I'm glad we have something less contentious to discuss.  Though some
>might think this is inappropriate matter for this forum, I'd have to disagree.
>But then I'm sure everyone is used to that from me.

Mars Observer is doing very well indeed and speeding toward the red planet.

  [ my stuff deleted ]
>I'd disagree here.  I take the rules and relationships to be the ways
>we represent to ourselves reality given our experience of reality and reflection
>upon it.  The difficult is when we begin to objectify these ways of understanding, and mistake them for the objects of study, rather than the ways we apprehend
>reality.  IMHO those who relect philosophically upon Modern Science have yet
>to grasp this distinction between what is understood and the way our mind
>understands.

I'm not sure we disagree.  I was trying to say, badly I guess, is that the
reality you refer to is much softer than popularly understood.  Gravity as
a force is understood, but as a 'thing' we don't know what it is or why it
works.  Electrons going from A to B without every being 'between' A and B.
And they are nowhere until we look!  So even the very fabric of my being
may be just a complex set of relationships involving space and time. So I 
am operating in an unreal enviroment as if it were real.  So I may not 
really be solid, but it is useful to think of myself that way.

I see the universe as a grand reflection of God's glory.

So I think I agree that there is a difficulty using science, modern or
otherwise, an unchanging basis for anything.  It is just a useful tool
to help me continue my day-to-day existence and to further glimpse the
grandure of God.  However, I don't think that means that science is
meaningless.  Anything but.  There is *a* reality to our existance, indeed
to existance of the universe itself, that beckons us to learn, explore,
utilize, and appreciate as we journey to a greater understanding of God.

I think this is a very pertinent topic.

Bob
--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:18:53 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 06-Nov-1992 0019" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      RE: Love & Christianity

When "(Simon Milton)" <milton@PROBITAS.CS.UTAS.EDU.AU> writes that he is
"homosexual AND a practising one at that" and also tells us that he is a
"practising Anglo-Catholic" I say "practice Anglo-Catholicism harder!"

As Anglo-Catholics, we are expected to follow the teaching authority of
the undivided Church.  Trying to figure out how to do that in a divided
Church is difficult, but an Anglo-Catholic suggestion is to see what
the various divided parts are saying, and where most of the Church is in
unity of agreement, you're quite certain you've got a teaching inspired
by God the Holy Spirit.

For the teaching on sexuality, we can look at those instances where local
councils of the Anglican Communion have issued statements that agree with
other councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Consider
the resolution of the General Synod of the Church of England in 1987,
which stated:

	... that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity
	and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and
	expression of, God's love for each one of us. ...
	1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which
	belongs properly within a permanent relationship;
	2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal,
	and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of
	compassion;
	3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal,
	and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the
	exercise of compassion;
	4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres
	of morality, including sexual morality, and that holiness of life
	is particularly required for Christian leaders.

Anglo-Catholics are called to commit themselves to the Will of God, as
revealed by the Scriptures and the Tradition and Teaching of the Church.

To fully practice Catholicism, whether it's Roman-, Anglo-, or Orthodox-
Catholicism, one must be willing to say, as Our Lord said, "not my will
but yours be done" no matter how difficult a task God has set before us.

"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your
word."  Pray that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:23:33 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: FAQ for Catholic Mailing list

On Nov 4, 10:58am, "(Edward J. Branley)" wrote:
} Subject: FAQ for Catholic Mailing List
}
} There are other things we could add, like mail order sources for books, music,
} etc.  As I said, I'm willing to do the compilation and editing, but I'll need
} input from you all to make it work.
}-- End of excerpt from "(Edward J. Branley)"

Ed,
	Though I haven't posted it yet, I am working on a 'Catholic
Resources' FAQ composed of publishers and periodicals.

	Incidentally, for everyone's info I'll be on travel for
work 11/7 - 11/12 so I won't be posting.  Don't take it as either
assent or affront. :-)

GZ

--
* Gordon Zaft     Argus Consulting  4500 E. Sunrise #N-6, Tucson, AZ 85718
* zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org | noao.edu!coyote!caritas!zaft
                 Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui.
Don't guess - check your security regulations.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:54:02 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 11

    		    Wednesday, November 11, 1992
		      Martin of Tours, Bishop

Titus 3:1-7 		    Psalm 23	     	 Luke 17:11-19

	      	      I DON'T GET NO RESPECT

"Thus the word of God will not fall into disrepute." --Titus 2:5

    Today many Christians have lost their credibility. The worldly, especially
those running the mass media, don't think they need to take Christians
seriously.  They characterize us as stupid, backwards, and harsh.  We
Christians don't seem to be worthy of a full-fledged persecution but only
snide remarks and mocking snickers.

    To restore our credibility we should:
  1. be good citizens (Ti 3:1).
  2. be good workers, "ready to take on any honest employment" (Ti 3:1).
  3. "not ... speak ill of anyone or be quarrelsome" (Ti 3:2).
  4. "be forbearing and display a perfect courtesy" (Ti 3:2).

    Think of those who don't take you seriously as a Christian.  Possibly
they are relatives, co-workers, or neighbors.  Apply today's Scripture
readings to your situation.  "Venerate the Lord, that is, Christ, in your
hearts.  Should anyone ask you the reason for this hope of yours, be ever
ready to reply, but speak gently and respectfully.  Keep your conscience
clear, so that, whenever you are defamed, those who libel your way of life
in Christ may be shamed" (I Pt 3:15-16).  "Your teaching must have the
integrity of serious, sound words to which no one can take exception.  If it
does, no opponent will be able to say anything bad about us, and hostility
will yield to shame" (Ti 2:7-8).


Prayer:  Father, may we Christians merit respect as the early Christians
	 did (Acts 4:33, 5:13).

Promise: "The Spirit He lavished on us through Jesus Christ our Savior."
	  Ti 3:7

Praise:  David gained his employer's respect by not compromising his
	 Christian principles.

-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
From: awerling@NMSU.EDU (WERLING)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Question
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:24:16 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I know I have tons to respond to, but something was said to me that I have
to followup on.

Got a personal letter from someone telling me I seem to be on this list to
flame Christianity and that my mode of conversation is out of line in this
forum (my questioning God's existence or the validity of the notion of
sin).  Only this one person has told me this, but it would be dishonest
and foolish of me to continue unless I check it out with the rest of you.


Andrew Werling on Planet Yip   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Wyoming?  Are you crazy?  I'm not moving to Wyoming.  What's up there?
Marlboro Men?" -- May, in _Fool_For_Love_ by Sam Shepard