HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Nature of List--Fossil
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:30:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Excerpts from catholic: 6-Nov-92 Re: Nature of List--Fossil James J
Buffer@MAGNUS.AC (822)

>>  I think that many of the ancient Church Fathers would be just as angry
>> with the attitude of the pre-Vatican II church as much as with the
>> post-Vatican II church.

> Interesting opinion. What is its basis? Further, the church is the
> church is the church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Thing,
> whether pre- or post-anything.

> Buffman.

Well, what I meant was that they would find fault in both some attitudes
of priests and bishops prior to Vatican II (ultra-conservatism) and some
attitudes of priests and bishops after Vatican II (modernism).

I think that you would agree that while the church is one and eternal,
sometimes it leans too much in one direction or the other.  I think that
anyone who thinks that the church was going in the right direction prior
to Vatican II should review the church over a period of 2,000 years, and
not just since Trent.

Now if you ask, how do I think that the Church Fathers would have been
unhappy with the pre-Vatican II church?  Well, for one thing, the
imposition of one language -- and the exaltation of this language as
"better" than any other would have been foreign to the early Fathers.
They probably would have been surprised at the emphases placed on rules
and regulations.  I think that the Tridentine Mass places far too much
emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice -- I think this is an overreaction
from the Reformation and not necessarily healthy.

No doubt that there are problems with the church today.  But let's not
ignore history and say that the church as it existed before Vatican II
is the ideal solution.

Eric
From: MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Congratulations America - plus a thought!
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:31:39 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


John,

Your statement, "(as far as could be seen on this side of the Atlan-
tic)" really means "(as far as I could see on this side of the Atlan-
tic)".  I am sure there are many on your side of the Atlantic who
considered George Bush the better candidate, just as there were
Americans who welcomed the Conservative victory earlier this year and
Americans who would have preferred Labour to have won.

I am a Catholic who supported Bush.  His opposition to abortion was
only one of the reasons.  Your statement, "he was merely aligning
himself with the right-wing of the Republican movement," is irrele-
vant whether or not it is true.  While Bush was not perfect on abor-
tion he did more than give lip service to the pro-life position.  He
implemented policies that would limit abortion.  Clinton will un-
doubtedly reverse these policies, and the number of babies killed
will increase as a result.  Bush vetoed pro-abortion legislation that
Clinton will sign.  For unborn children and for those of us who
recognize their right to life, Clinton's election is a disaster.

Pope Pius XI said that no Catholic could be a socialist.  Some have
argued that he was referring to a particular kind of socialism and
that other kinds are acceptable, but a Catholic who supports "social-
ism" should be familiar with the pope's teaching and should be pre-
pared to show that what he means by "socialism" is not what the pope
condemned.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm  mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      RE: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:53:25 GMT

In article <00963736.298A75A0.15225@swdev.si.com> "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM> writes:
>All very pretty, nicely written words, but it still is a bunch of men telling
>themselves why their denial of women is just and proper.

   Thank you for your thoughtful insights.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:25:04 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              12 Nov 1992 14:16:20 -0500 from <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:16:20 -0500 <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>Brent,
>Why is it important that I have a criteria for determining which of two
>persons has sinned or not? I have a criteria for myself which is different
>than someone else. I guess I'll have to bite on your last question, yes,
>as long as our actions are performed in a way we think is for loving Him
>and mankind, then we are not sinning and therefore 'don't matter to God'.
>-J.J.


No suprises in your answer J.J.   I thought about asking you if we are really
loving God when we break his commandments because we have a different
criteria for sin.  My guess is that your answer is that those
guidelines written in the Bible really aren't commandments (Correct me if I'm
wrong).
     I'm concerned about this relativist view that you espouse for several
reasons.  First, if the Bible is divinely inspired as I believe it to be, then
it is clearly dangerous to reject so much of it in favor of our own perceptions
 of sin.  Secondly, I think that people can justify any action to themselves
and others in the absence of objective guidelines.  Third, how can we
effectively convey our values as Parents, as Christians, or as a Church to
our children or non-Christians if we give the impression that everything is OK
as long as you feel good about it.   Oops, maybe those are your values J.J. :)
I really can't picture God condemming the actions of one person because that
person knew his action was wrong while justifying the same action in another
person because that person felt good about it.

Brent
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:31:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.145921.23786@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>The Vatican is not identical with the Church.  The Church is the
>entire people of God, and Church leaders have an obligation to
>consider the experience and prayerful conclusions reached by the
>faithful.

Perhaps in some humanistic-centered faiths, but certainly not in the 
Roman Catholic Church.  The infallibility of church teaching does not
rest with the meanderings of the minds of the faithful, but the
doctrinal analysis that is arrived at by those qualified and charged
with the care of the deposit of faith.  We, as laymen, certainly do not
qualify as experts in the minutae of church teaching or doctrine, except
(as evident from this list...) to debate it.

One of the abuses passed off as issuing forth from Vatican Council II 
was this thought that the church takes its legitimacy from the consent
of the "people of God", which is one of the tenets condemned by the
encyclicals dealing with Modernism...The Church does not derive its
authority from us...nor does it have to listen to you or me in
determining its theology or doctrine.  If we want that, there are a 
multitude of religions that are based on that structure.


  Matt 18:15-17 could just as easily be used against
>narrow-minded curial officials as it could to sincere, prayerful,
>Christ-like homosexuals living in monogamous relationships.
>
>The curia doesn't have a lock on truth or the Holy Spirit, you know.
>They've been wrong about things before and they're wrong about some
>things now.
>
In your opinion.  Please quantify where they have been inconsistent in
your view with the deposit of faith, tradition, and consistent doctrine.



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: Nature of List
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:38:00 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <Bx5C8B.LEn@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jkythe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jay K. Kythe) writes:

>I agree with the person that posted about how hateful/spiteful this
>group can be.  I stopped posting when after my first message

It's regrettable. But it does seem to be the nature of this sort of forum.
It's public, long-distance, and anonymous. Also, it's dealing with issues
people take very seriously. Sometime check out some of the technical groups,
where the heat and hate generated over some bit of computer trivium are
astounding. So it could be worse.
Also, keep in mind that one man's sarcastic response is another's simple
honesty.
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Church of England & women priests
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:30:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

In the newspaper article I read this morning on this topic, it stated
that the "Vatican" saw this as a step backward in the process of
unification of the churches. It then stated that the acceptance of
the ordination of women among Roman Catholics was only 24% in 1974,
while today the acceptance was 64%. We all know how good exit polls are:-),
so is this an indication the the "Vatican" is out of the loop when it
comes to spiritual inspiration today:-)? (not a serious question, John:-)

Our parish went through the Renew process several years ago, and obviously
I was a bit hesitant to express my views on topics like the ordination of
women (OK, so I wasn't that hesitant:-), but this 64% figure I would say is
conservative in our parish. The message I have perceived from our parish
leadership is that our faith must grow beyond the rules/regulation stage
into something like a "one-on-one" with Christ. Some of the rules which
have prevented some to be more like Christ have already fallen by the wayside,
we now have greater community involvement in the Mass, which then follows
out into the community we live in (Even our Church parking lot is a friendly
place:-). So I guess this ordination rule (and all the cicumstantial evidence
which supports it) is beginning to be viewed as more of an obstacle than a
enhancement to our faith. (well, at least for me anyway) The irony of this
feeling I have occured this Sunday at a parish meeting on RCIA. The head
of our RCIA program, who went through it himself, singled me out of the
crowd as the person who convinced him to join the program, and my wife
popped out with, "and now he's thinking of leaving:-)", argh!!!, so John
and Steve don't worry, I'm not leaving, if only to prove my wife wrong:-)

-J.J.
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 10:40:29 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Nov 4, 11:46am, WERLING wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
} On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:
} > On Oct 30, 12:57pm, WERLING wrote:
} > } Homosexuality hurts no one.
} >
} > 	What's your basis for this?
}
} I'm gay.  My being gay hurts no one.
}-- End of excerpt from WERLING

	Do you know this, or do you merely suppose it?


--
* 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.
Use IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE... to implement multi-way branches.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Lots of Questions for Catholics here...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:08:45 GMT

In article <Pine.3.03.9211041117.A29506-c100000@dante> WERLING <awerling@NMSU.E
DU> writes:
>I have lots of these to respond to, so I'll try to be brief in my comments.
>
>On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Joel Neisen) wrote:
>
>> "The natural man can not come to know such teaching, for him it is absurdity
."
>> (2 Cor 4:11 ?)   In a sense this is circular reasoning.  Kind of
>> like using 2 Tim 3:16 to show that Scripture is indeed truthful and
> applicable.
>> Nonetheless, as Christians we are challenged to see with eyes of faith
>> and to not rely merely on our own intellect (By no means am I endorsing
>> mind-less obedience).
>
>How do you reconcile this?  You cannot use reason and pure faith...the two
>do not work together.

Reason and faith are compatible. Some mysteries of the faith are beyond the 
power of reason to discover, but they do not invalidate reason. Reason has 
limits but it works pretty well. Reason is one of God's gifts to us. It frees 
us from being cut off from each other. Without reliable reason, common to human 
nature, we would be radically isolated individuals, each with our own system of 
"truth". In effect, we would be like little gods, each trapped in his or her 
own hell. 
>    Reason can tell us that one God exists, but cannot tell us that God is
Three in One and that He cares for each of us.  Revelation tells us that. 
Reason leads us up to the brink of faith, and makes our minds open to God's 
gift of faith. Bad reasoning can make faith impossible or distorted...
>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
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:28:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:18:45 GMT <75furlong@CUA.EDU> said:
>
>As long as we're discussing Bible inerrancy (also in another post): there are a
>number of areas where the Bible contradicts itself. It may have been divinely
>inspired, but it was nonetheless written by men who were (as all humans)
>flawed, and influenced by the society in which they lived.
>         I don't have other examples off the top of my head, but I know that
>people have done research on this.
>

Alison, critics have been trying to discredit the Bible for many centruries.
Those contradictions you've read about are usually explainable.  Some of the
difficulties, are admittedly tough to explain, but you won't find any major
contradictions on any issues of major importance.  There are numerous examples
of critics who set out to prove that the Bible was not divinely inspired or
that the Resurrection was just a myth, and who were converted to Christianity
after scrutinizing the evidence.  I can give you several names of skeptics who
wrote books about their searching and experiences if you'd like.


>Finally, I was amused by your .sig in another post which read "Your
>ideal lover is just around the corner" (or something close to this). Too bad
>that, if that lover should be of the same sex, nothing can come of it :).
>

Gee, what a nice way to keep a meaningful dialouge going.


>-Alison

Brent
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:21:14 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Women's ordination yet again *sigh*

On Nov 5, 11:08am, "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,    wrote:
} Subject: RE: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5
} Marty Helgesen (mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu) writes:
}
} >In the same way, if a bishop were to ordain a woman (baptized or unbaptized,
} >nothing would happen.  She would not be a priest, but there is no way we
 could
} >prove this by scientific experimentation.
}
} So, you don't believe that Jesus told the truth then when he said "What you
 bind
} on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in
} heaven." do you?  Here, he wasn't speaking only to Peter.  He spoke to all the
} apostles.  Now, the bishops are the successors of the apostles and as such
 each,
} in their own right, has the authority conveyed by Jesus in the above
 statement.
} Thus, if a bishop ordains anyone, be it man or woman, baptised or not, *it
 will
} be valid* by the authority given him (or her!) by God.
}-- End of excerpt from "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,

	I would say you misunderstand, but I'm not sure if that's it or
if you choose to misunderstand.

	The authority of a bishop does not change reality.  A bishop can't
change human nature.  A bishop can't change what is necessary to confect
the Eucharist, for example, nor can he change what is necessary for
ordination.  Binding and loosing refers to sins.  You are mixing apples
and oranges.

	I'm not putting this very well.  A bishop could attempt to confect
grape juice and honey-nut bread into the Body and Blood of Christ, but he
could not do it.  It's not in its nature.  Similarly, the bishop could
attempt to ordain an unbaptized man, or a woman.  He could not do it.
It's not possible.

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.
It is better to have loved and lost -- much better.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:43:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.154121.10754@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (jo
hn ocallaghan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.145921.23786@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond
Lang) writes:
>>
>>The Vatican is not identical with the Church.  The Church is the
>>entire people of God, and Church leaders have an obligation to
>>consider the experience and prayerful conclusions reached by the
>>faithful.  Matt 18:15-17 could just as easily be used against
>>narrow-minded curial officials as it could to sincere, prayerful,
>>Christ-like homosexuals living in monogamous relationships.
>
>"Church leaders have an obligation to consider the experience and prayerful
>conclusions reached by the faithful" in light of Revelation which has its
>sources in Scripture and Tradition.
>
>What obligation do the prayerful faithful have to the teaching authority
>of the Church?
>
>Peace,
>John
>

     Unfortunately, to many modern day catholics they have NO obligation
to the teaching authority of the Church. Some seem to think that they can
pick and chose what to believe and what to disregard.
     As an example, I recently had a conversation with a "Catholic for CHoice".
She disregarded the Church teaching on abortion, saying that she considered
a fetus a "possibility." I then asked her how she squared this with the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Was it really the Immaculate 
"Possibility"? If Mary was without sin from the start, then she must have
been human from the start, as only humans sin.
     After I presented my argument to her she responded "Well, thats only
something dreamed up by some men. It's not infallible." I then proceeded
to ask her "What makes you Catholic?" She could only come up with the
weak reply "Well, its home."
     In my view we have a serious problem in that most people think that
the Church has no special claim on revelation. These same people who think
that the Catholic Church is just another church then try to change it to fit
their own images. Feminists want women priests, abortion-rights people want 
abortion, zero-population-growthers want birth control, others wish to deny
original sin, etcetera ad nauseam. It is my contention that their have been 
throughout the ages many people who think that "They know best". These
people then went to start their own churches. I often wonder why today these
same people who know better than the Holy Father continue to try to change the
Catholic church rather than just join some splinter church that fits God into
their own image of what He should be.
     IMHO it is silly for someone who denies the essential belief in the
authority of the Catholic CHurch to try to change it. If it doesn't have
a special claim on revelation, than why are they still members of the CHurch?

(OK, im off my soapbox. Flame away.)
Karl Schudt
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:40:58 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

Brent,
Which one of the commandments is violated by same sex marriages?
As far as my values and what I convey to my children, I've often wondered
about that myself, but I guess it's not so much if it makes you feel good,
rather that it makes someone else feel good. Of course, my wife is an
extreme example in that she overextends herself in helping out others and
ends up neglecting herself. So I guess that we also need to set limitations
on ourselves for what feels good. Your limits may be different tnan mine.
As far as God condemning anyone differently for the same actions, maybe you
have a point, why should he condemn anyone for falling in love with another
person (same sex or not) as long as the relationship was monogamous:-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:46:18 GMT

U14663@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

>And lest someone say that a practice of many centuries
>is proof of God's will, I can only say that repeatedly doing something
>wrong doesn't make it right.

While a "practice of many centuries" is not necessarily proof positive of 
God's will, the suggestion that God wills women to be priests implies that he's
really quite remarkably ineffectual at guiding his church. After all, any 
half-decent deity should be able to convince his Church of the matter if 
he wanted to, given an incarnation, a dozen apostles, and two thousand 
years of guidance by the Holy Spirit!

Maybe you and others should seriously consider the possibility that God 
isn't calling women to be priests, and that the Vatican and the Orthodox 
Patriarchs are being faithful to the will of God in their refusal to conform 
to popular demands for the "ordination" of women? 

God bless,

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928