HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia)
Subject: Re: Nature of List
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:06:21 GMT

Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:

>The
>answer to the inability of religion to address the needs of the people is
>not to return to a church which was once valuable but is no longer, but
>rather to continue to change the church to make it current and meaningful
>to the people. We all, I would think, agree that the church has many
>important things to say to the people of today. Unless it speaks its
>message in terms people can understand, they will see the church as
>irrelevant.

I do not think that the church should change its positions to adapt to
its people, especially the RC church. I think the problem today, and
I would like to work on this, is that the church bring out its teachings
more publicly (the messages are getting muffled) to answer current moral
dilemmas. In other words, we followers need the church's help in our own
ethics problems and I do not hear their positions loudly enough to follow.

>Let's take structure. Why is it the church a hierarchy? It is a hierarchy

Did not Jesus say of John the Baptist, "...he will be least in the
kingdom of God..." (or something like that) ? The kingdom of God (or
heaven) HAS hierarchy. So must the church to reflect (and be the seed
for) the kingdom of God.

>The church's position with regards to women is driving people away. Would
>you rather have no church, or one where women are treated as equals? If

Considering that only the RC church(with the Orthodox) attribute great-
ness to the Blessed Virgin as greatest among the saints and no other
churches do, I find this statement to be quite erroneous.


>If we want those pews to be full again, if we want Jesus's message to be
>carried to the world, if the church is to be meaningful to the world of
>today, some changes are going to have to be made.

I think, changes only in the matter of making the churches' voice be 
heard even louder or that the church even be bold enough to speak in
this day and age. Of course, there will always be growth in faith.

>Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
>The American University
>Washington DC 20016-8019 USA

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
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 10:56:50 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject: AIDS (was Re: ACT-UP)

On Nov 4, 12:32pm, WERLING wrote:
} Subject: Re: ACT-UP
} On Tue, 3 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:
}
} > 	We can stop the epidemic without having a cure.  We have all the
} > resources we need at our disposal NOW to stop the disease from spreading.
}
} How about those who already have it?
}-- End of excerpt from WERLING

	Are you saying they are more deserving of our help than those
with cancer or heart disease or diabetes?

	As for those who already have it, I seriously doubt we will be
able to find a cure in time to save them.  At least if Dr. Koop is to
be believed.

--
* 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.
You have mail.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:22:25 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Nature of List--Fossil

Excerpts from catholic: 5-Nov-92 Re: Nature of List--Fossil
waldbill1981@ISCSVAX.UNI (5372)

> I appreciate the liturgy when it is focused on Christ alone and NOT on
> the community. (As Josef Cardinal Ratzinger recently said, When people
celebrate the community, they are celebrating nothing.)

More evidence that His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger is full of it and has
lost sight of the Gospel.

Scripture tells us plainly the importance of community.  We are the Body
of Christ.  Perhaps to Ratzinger's dismay, "communion" is a cognate of
"community."  We come to Mass not only to celebrate the sacrifice of
Christ, but to celebrate the communion of saints.

Scripture tells us that we ARE the Body of Christ.  We CANNOT focus on
Christ alone without recognizing the community of believers.  Sounds to
me that your and Ratzinger's attitude is falling into the same error as
fundamentalists: It's just me and Jesus, no one else.  The Mass is
purely personal; all "vertical" worship, we must accept no "horizontal"
emphasis (liturgical doublespeak worthy only of Modernist heresy).

Indeed the Mass IS the Eternal Sacrifice of Calvary.  But also remember
that the Eucharist is also communion among believers.  You cannot
separate the celebration of the community with the celebration of the
Sacrifice.

Are you basing your criticisms of the Church on Scripture and Apostolic
Tradition?  Seems to me that Ratzinger and other traditionalists have
lost their mooring in Scripture and Ancient Tradition (and I do
emphasize Ancient, that is, continuous tradition from the Apostles, not
tradition of the last 400 years).  Criticism of the church should take
place in the context of 2,000 years, not merely "Oh, we've changed since
Trent when we were busy playing Don Quixote, burning heretics, and
saving the Faith from those deceived by Satan, we've lost our zeal."

I am sorry -- Trent is not the only standard by which the Church should
be judged.  Do not ignore 2,000 years of history -- not to mention
Sacred Scripture -- for the sake of adhering to Tridentine tradition
alone.

I am sorely saddened at the attitudes I've seen expressed by Ratzinger.
We need someone who is faithful not to Trent, not to Vatican I, etc.,
but someone faithful to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as
revealed by Sacred Scripture and 2,000 years of Apostolic Tradition.  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.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:13:38 -0600
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

> Disagreement is what causes people to grow.  I'm here to grow.  Hopefully
> everyone wants to grow.  I'm not here to be converted or to change your
> mind.  Maybe we can learn from each other, rather than futilely try to
> "change" each other.

"As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another".
Disagreement can cause people to grow,
> I'm not here to be converted
> Maybe we can learn from each other

You are hopefully open to the possibility that what you may learn
could produce a desire to be converted.

joel
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:24:05 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nature of List

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:07:51 GMT Bryan D. Boyle said:
- - - - - some text deleted - - - - -
>Grow?  that is why there are less priests now than there were 40 years
>ago, many parishes have to close or merge with another parish, Catholic
>schools are financially strapped, and of the parishes that are open, the
>pews are 1/3 filled on Sunday mornings.  Grow?  I have been active as
>a Lector, Eucharistic Minister, RCIA, and other ministries within the
>church for over 20 years.  I attend workshops, and all those other
>events that the diocese provides to help us in our work as ministers of
>the various rites within the parish.  Grow?  I wish for the sake of the
>Catholic Church it was true, but, sadly, I think you had better come out
>of the University and take a look around the world outside of the
>beltway down there.
>
Bryan:

I too remember the days when, if you didn't get to church at leasty 10
minutes ahead of time, you didn't get a seat.  When I attended Catholic
school, and boy was that a long time ago, I had to attend daily Mass as
part of my education.  Now I can't always find a daily Mass to attend.
A busy church today offers three or four Masses on Sunday.  There was a
time when the first Mass started at 6 a.m. and the last Mass was at 12
noon with a Mass every hour and still they were filled to the doors.

Many changes within the church have bothered me while some are welcome.
While I enjoy the Mass in English, I would prefer to have part of it in
Latin.  And where are those beautiful Latin chants and the music and the
colorful ceremonies?  Were those so bad?

Why is it that many young priests want to be called "Tom" or "Chuck" or
"Bill" rather than "Father?"  I don't consider any priest just one of
the boys.  A priest is special and deserves special treatment.

Before and after Mass, the times I used to enjoy because I could say a
prayer or two, there is so much noise and talking that it is hopeless.
I realize that part of being a Christian is to love my neighbor, to talk
to them, but in this busy world there aren't very many opportunities to
pray - or is that out of vogue these days?

From the stark appearance of many modern church interiors these days I
can't help but wonder why we are ashamed to give back to God some of the
beauty he has allowed us to enjoy.  Why are we now afraid to defend the
use of statues as a visual aid to prayer and meditation?

Yes, I'm an old fossil stuch in a lost time, but I haven't seen that the
efforts of Vatican II have had much of a payoff.

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
From: bthoms@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:38:43 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

I only check into this group every so often, so there was a whole lot of stuff
to catch up on this thread, some of it already rebutted in an accurate and
honest way. A couple of things caught my eye that people seemed to gloss over a
bit. Firstly, it's best not to work too hard at proving Jesus as a historical
figure. The first non-Christian reference, as far as I recall, is in the work
of a Roman senator called Tacitus, who (to paraphrase from memory) talks of
"the followers of a man called Christos" involved in civil unrest. Tacitus
writes about half a century after the crucifixion. There is certainly no
comparative contemporary source for Jesus (any more than there is for the
Jewish exodus). If you are a Christian historian, and you now want to take out
of the Gospels all reference to where Jesus was and when, it still doesn't
invalidate his teachings and it still doesn't invalidate the covenant he seals
between us and God.

The problem I have with all this pedantic trash is that we are determined to
define God, so we can tell other people what to think and what God wants. We
are so sure that God is made in man's image that we resist  our human souls
being drawn to God.

If you truly love Jesus, and believe him, and believe in him, how could you
speak of being "revolted" by people who are oppressed by society. I know the
love the sinner/hate the sin nonsense, but the reality is that homophobia *is*
a disorder, homosexuality isn't, but when people have to live their whole lives
amongst rabid homophobes, don't expect them to be happy all the time.
Christians have an obligation to recognise that society treats gays and
lesbians appallingly (and often in subliminal oppression), and, by supporting
the oppressed, turn the tide of suicide, substance dependency and depression
that result for homophobia. 

For Christian gays and lesbians, the same rules apply as for heterosexuals: a call to stable and loving relations, to works of
charity and faithsharing and community building. It just seems to me that not
many heterosexuals provide us with such a great role-model in all of these
things, so lesbians and gays may just have to use Jesus' own life as an
example. Theology this century has highlighted some of the ambiguities in the
biblical prohibitions on homosexuality. For people with sexual obsessions, it
is not easy to dissociate sex with perversion, violence, promiscuity and vice.
Certainly Old and New Testament writers address these topics. Certainly there
was no gay or lesbian culture in biblical times, and no concept of gay human
rights. When you take out temple prostitution and rules for a people marching
for thier lives out of a desert and insert loving, nurturing and useful
same-sex relationships conducted with dignity and respect within a Christian
community, it should give pause for more thought.

Brent Thomson
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: ACT-UP
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:26:0 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

"(Gordon (Gordon C. Zaft @ Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ) once wrote....
>In any case, I NEVER said AIDS victims didn't deserve compassion.  I
>*did* say they should get only their fair share of research money
>(proportionate with their numbers).

This would be very bad health policy -- diseases according to their 
numbers.  First of all, its immoral -- it assumes limited resources 
and says aids victims are somehow less worthy.

Second of all, its insane because we have a world wide epidemic of 
aids which has the POTENTIAL to wipe out the whole human race!!  Aids 
is harder to get than many diseases, but lasts for many years -- so 
the result is that aids is much more contagious in the longer term 
than many diseases.

Enough money has to be spent to do the job of adequate testing -- 
immdeiate treatment for those found positive for the virus, a really 
vigorous program to get rid of drugs and proper funding of existing 
hospitals and appropriate construction of more hospitals so the 
people can be taken care of.

Also, the virus has to be stripped of its civil rights.  (I 
understand the aids virus can't even read the government pamphlets 
which define the means of transmission.)  
       

----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:54:35 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Question

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:32:27 -0500 <mayo@CS.UTK.EDU> said:
>Anddrew Werling wrote:
>>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.
>
-----some text deleted-----

Andy:

Perhaps I'm getting more out of this exchange than you are.  You have
made me dig a little deeper into why I am a Catholic...

Dick (the old man who takes his belief in God for granted)

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:17:11 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Question

Well, it seems most have agreed that Andy should continue to post to
this list. Here's my opinion (not that it will surprise many)

Andrew, you should leave rather than stay dishonestly and cause trouble:-)

...and here is my "basis"

1) I'm jealous, nobody ever sent me mail asking me to leave(sniff,sniff:-)

2) You scare the crap out of most Catholics; a celebant gay who is asking
why he shouldn't be allowed to marry another celebant gay, perhaps adopt
a few children, ...be a real family.

OK, so maybe I don't "know" most Catholics are scared, but I'm sure the feel
uncomfortable with the idea:-) -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:57:03 -0500
From:         "(Amanda Walker)" <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Women's ordination yet again *sigh*

jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu writes:
>Neither, however, is it our place to say that because God can do something, he
>either does or must do something, in order to live up to our notions of what
>is right and proper for God to do.

I very much agree.  We can't take a "cookbook" approach to the works
of God in either respect.  We must simply be as diligent and receptive as
possible to the voice of the Spirit when we are faced with complex issues.

Sometimes this means changing our understanding of them; sometimes it
means working to change others' understanding.  In either case, prayer
and contemplation are essential.  If we act only from our own limited
understanding, and ignore the promptings of the Spirit when they are
not what we expect, we cannot help but fail.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.202407.21472@news.nd.edu> jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>
>In the light of recent events in the Anglican church, it is interesting
>to remember that the seeds of the Anglican church were planted in an 
>act of disobedience to papal authority that risked and achieved schism
>of the Church in England.  I guess we continue to see that you reep what
>you sow.
>Peace,
>John

Ugh, horrible error in spelling.  Sorry.
Peace,
John


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Imposing religious beliefs on others
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:54:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.151212.8088@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:
>   Technically, my arguments rest on my assumption, and while I may have
>misinterpreted your original statements, my interpretation was that any
>system of living would by necessity involve moral judgements regarding
>certain actions.  For example, killing someone is wrong.  
>
>   If one takes this viewpoint to its logical extreme, then one gets the
>situation I had arrived at, whereby _every_ action is viewed in terms of its
>moral consequences, and I then pointed out that in the extreme, one has
>behavior that is silly.  Therefore, my arguments do follow from my
>postulates--you happen to disagree with my postulates.  That you may not
>have reached this extreme is somewhat irrelevant to my argument.

You have given us one "assumption" or postulate.  But you refer to other       
postulates.  What are they?  You also refer to "its logical extreme."  But
without these postulates, and without the logical apparatus by which you are
taking this to its extreme displayed for us, this looks like an assertion, and
you are trying to make it look like more than an assertion, by associating it
with the term 'logical'.  How are you taking it to "its logical extreme?"

>   But in the interest of preserving bandwidth, I invite you to discuss the
>nature of truth with me in private e-mail, rather than pursuing increasingly
>academic and moot points.

Here I disagree with you.  I do not think these are either academic or moot
points.  Your original objection to the posting on the basis of morality
questioned the appropriate use of 'fact' in that discussion, and you
now seem to think the use of the term 'truth' is involved in that discussion.
If you now accept that it is perfectly appropriate to use those terms in the
discussion, then yes any further points about 'fact' and 'truth' are moot
in the context of that discussion; on the other hand, if you do not accept
their appropriateness in that discussion, then the points are hardly moot, as
they condition that discussion.

Peace,
JOhn

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:18:36 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Okay, cool

Thanks for the input, so I'm here to stay.  If I ever get overbearing, you
have to let me know, because tend to do that now and then.

I'll be back later in the day.  There is tons to respond to, so look out
for an avalanche! ;-)

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:25:58 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.
>
>-----------------------------+--------------------------------
> Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
> Smiths Industries, Inc.     |           tillman_brian@si.com
> 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129    | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
> Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
>-----------------------------+--------------------------------

    If the arguments are faulty, why not address the arguments?  Your
comment seems to be primarily ad hominem (ad virum, liceat dici).  Is
the validity of an argument dependent strictly upon the person who's
saying it?  (Beg pardon, but if so, why should I take your word?)


John Rickert					Sacrificium Deo
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		cor contribulatum.
							-- Ps. 51

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic