HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Importing priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.153621.14123@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>"Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
>>}
>>} Wait.  Africans you say?  Won't work, at least down here.  I'll be willing to
>>} bet that there are many parishes which would fold before accepting a black
>>} priest on a regular basis.
>>
>>        Then fold they should, since they've already left the Catholic
>>Church (at least partly) by denying the validity of its orders.
>
>Whoa there Gordon.  Nobody said they denied the validity of orders, they
>just would be exhibiting a non-loving prejudicial attitude.  They haven't
>left the church.  I certainly think this would be a very sad situation
>but it would not preclude me from loving my brother and sister New
>Orlean's catholics, even as I would urge them to reconsider their
>thoughts and actions.
>
>Let's ease up on this 'they're not part of the church' stuff.  We all
>are sinners, but God love us anyway.

   Actually, I think Gordon may have a point here, although I'm not so
sure it has to do with validity of orders.  There is a canon (I don't
have my book handy) that says basically that refusing to celebrate
Mass with Catholics in good standing is an act of schism.

   Therefore, by rejecting a black priest, such people would liably be
guilty of schism, in addition to the sin of racism.  I'll try to find
the canon tonight.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Public worship (was Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor)
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:22:28 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Nov18.012915.10961@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:
>    The ACLU does not have any problem with worship as long as it occurs on
>private property.  However, a worship ceremony of any kind on public
>property implies that the government approves of that religion, and may give
>it preferential treatment in other areas as well.

   Nonsense!  It doesn't imply any such thing!  This is nothing more
than sophistry.

>     As for your library example, technically, the Egyptian cultist's
>meeting should not be held in the library, either, if it is primarily a
>religious group.  The Communist Party, as a political organization, is not
>covered by the First Amendment's separation clause, and is thus free to meet
>in the public library.

   There is no such "separation" clause, as such.  The Constitution
says nothing whatsoever about keeping religion "separated" from the
state, and certainly not from public property.  Here is what the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says:

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
	abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
	of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
	Government for a redress of grievances. 

   Certainly no law need be passed by anyone to _allow_ anything to be
done, unless it has already been prohibited.  To pass a law
prohibiting worship in a public place is to pass a law prohibiting the
free exercise of religion.  It is ludicrous to claim that allowing a
group of people to use a public place, but not allowing the same group
of people to use the same place at the same time to pray, is not a
prohibition against the free exercise of religion.

>   You have a right to assemble freely, as guaranteed by the First
>Amendment.  This does not mean that you have a Constitutional right to
>worship publicly.  

   Again, nonsense!

>    So, while the Nazis and the Klan have the right to demonstrate, those
>who oppose these groups are also able to demonstrate, often at the same
>time, even!

   Now wait a minute.  By your logic of not allowing _any religion_ to
worship publicly, it seems we should _not_ allow the Nazis or Klan to
demonstrate, NOR SHOULD WE ALLOW ANY GROUPS OPPOSING THEM to
demonstrate either.  Which is it?  You can't have it both ways.  And
what if someone who disagrees with you decides to hold a public
worship service AS A WAY TO PROTEST such laws you are trying to impose
on the rest of us?  Why isn't that just as much a legitimate form of
free speech as any of the other causes the ACLU embraces?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:03:35 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Ordination of women yet again *sigh*

On Nov 16, 11:17pm, andy wrote:
} Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
} In article <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu>, jdd@db.toronto.edu
} (John DiMarco) says:
} >
} >U14663@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
} >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
}
}  How do you know that there are no women who wish to be priests? If no women
} are called, than there is no harm in changing the rules, is there?

        Women wishing to be priests does not equate to women being called
by God to be priests.
}
} >Patriarchs are being faithful to the will of God in their refusal to conform
} >to popular demands for the "ordination" of women?
}
} Where has God said this? Where is it in scripture. Proof please.

        Whoa, here.  Those desiring to change the rules have the burden
of proof!  Where in Scripture does it say that God wants women to be
priests.


}-- End of excerpt from andy



--
* 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.
The door is the key.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:00:45 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Jesus and opinion polls

Steve B.
Let me apologize for being incoherent. My train of thought is often
interrupted here at work and my mail system is not as user friendly
as other news networks. I plead guilty to the charge of being one of
those "misguided" persons who don't think that barring women from the
priesthood was one of Jesus' teachings. I don't think I'd go so far as
to say I disagree on a whole spectrum of issues, maybe just a narrow band.
I totally agree that we must all answer to our own consciences, hence,
my steadfast insistence that the Church revisit the importance of some
of its "traditions". I guess what I don't see clearly is what the
ordination of women would mean to the big picture. It is hard for me
to buy that a Host wouldn't be a Host, a sin wouldn't be forgiven or
a marriage not valid if they were performed by a woman. That this is
some sort of test of our faith to see if we will blindly follow Christ
even if it means living with a system which is unjust, also is hard to
swallow, or is that the point. Sometimes it just appears to me that
the Churchs' hierarchy (if it can be said it has a combined conscience) is
afraid to admit that it may have made a mistake in interpretting God's
message, or that it feels insulted that God didn't come to them first
with some message, even a combined conscience of humans is bound to have
some fallible human pride in it. Or is this another of Jesus' teachings
I'm missing since I don't see how an all-male priesthood fits in with
faith and morals?
Steve B., what is apparent to me is that you are being very patient with
me in your responses, and I appreciate your courtesy, I hope I haven't
missed your points too badly again. - 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:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:55:06 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Separation of Church and State

On Nov 18,  1:29am, Haig Kasab wrote:
}
}
}     The point of the now-anonymous poster after the >>'s is that anyone can
} pray to oneself at any time--during a test, before meals, while commuting to
} work, in the shower, even in the voting booth, but the interpretation of the
} Constitution is clear on this point:  the state can neither condemn nor
} condone any Church.

        Actually, Haig, the modern notion of 'separation of Church
and State' is just that -- modern.  The Founding Fathers had a
very different conception of the relations between church and state.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll see (if I remember correctly)
that it says "Congress shall make no law ... respecting [that is,
with respect to] religion."  That's actually quite a far cry from
where we are now.
}
} >     We here have a right to worship publicly by the constitution.
} >     The ACLU reads "freedom of religion" as "freedom from religion."
}
}    You have a right to assemble freely, as guaranteed by the First
} Amendment.  This does not mean that you have a Constitutional right to
} worship publicly.
        Of course we have the right to worship publicly.  It's under
freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, AND freedom of speech.
}
}-- End of excerpt from Haig Kasab



--
* 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.
I wish you humans would leave me alone.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:57:07 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Priest shortage...
              Priest shortage..." (Nov 19,  8:37pm)

Ed, There is no religion in Hawaii that predominates....as no ethnic
group predominates.  There are many Buddhists due to the large
Japanese population.  There are proportionately more Episcopalians
than in most places due to the close connection of the Hawaiian
monarchy with the Church of England. [The original Episcopal Church in
Hawaii was a missionary district of the Diocese of London.  But the
largest Christian denomination is still the Roman Catholic Church.
That is the significance of the lack of seminarians.  We have
Episcopal seminarians, but no Catholic.  There is also a relatively
large population of Latter Day Saints here, likely due to the presence
of the Mormon temple in Laie [north Oahu].

Shalom,                        Len Howard OSL
                               tas@pegasus.com
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Women Priests: WCVB-TV in Boston appears totally confused.
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:06:11 GMT
 <wXLHuB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I think it may just be another case of the media's trying to press its
agenda.  If you go back to my original post about the pastoral letter,
remember that I said the AP's article on the conference said roughly
the same sorts of things.

Flame away.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:39:40 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: Separating our kids from public schools

Brent writes:

>Does society, and do we as Christians, have an interest and
>possibly a moral obligation to convey basic values to the many children of
>irresponsible parents?

Hmm...  Good question.  I'll have to chew on it for a while.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:12:07 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Women's ordination

On Nov 16, 11:21pm, andy wrote:
} Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
} In article <BxMvx5.GDx@news.udel.edu>, stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz)
} says:
} >
} >In article <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu
} n
} >(Joh
} >DiMarco) writes:
} >
} >1) What radical signs do you see, signs "of the times", to persuade you
} >that in this century God is making the divine Will known in ways that
} >were not so in other centuries?
}
} The fact that not enough men are being called to the priesthood. How many
} parishes in Europe and North America, even once fervent Quebec are without
} parish priests. Why would God not call enough men to the priesthood unless
} it was because He was calling enough women to meet the shortage?

        Basically you are saying that because you don't understand the
reasons, it must be because God wants women to be priests.  Pretty weak
argument.  In any case, I doubt this is the first time in the  Church's
history that there's been a 'priest crisis'.  The crisis is also not
as bad as some would claim -- The number of priests increased last year
(albeit only slightly) and there's every indication this trend will
continue.

        It's far more likely that the current crisis is due to a) the
large numbers of priests who left the ministry after Vatican II, and b)
the decline in vocations due to lack of emphasis and mistaken or
misrepresented ideas as to what Vatican II taught.
}
} >2) Has there been a new consciousness about the status of women which
} >is powerful enough to be the beginning of a new interpretation of God's
} >revelation in Jesus, an interpretation which suggests that only in
} >this century has it become clear that Jesus meant for the priesthood
} >to be for both men and women?  What signs are there of this new
}
} Where does it say in the Bible that women cannot be priests. Indeed where does
} it say that we should have Cardinals and Popes?

        As I said in an earlier note, the burden of proof is on those
wishing to change the status quo.  As for Cardinals, they are only a
mechanism for advising and electing the pope.  Surely the Church can
make rules for its own governance?
}
} There is a crisis of numbers in the clergy, is there not?
} Why is this, is it by design or is God just becoming forgetful about calling
} enough men to the priesthood?

        How about those called not responding?
}-- End of excerpt from andy



--
* 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 are going to have a new love affair.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Priest shortage
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:18:33 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:

> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> > ...  Of course, when there are no
> >more priests in this country, maybe things will come to a head.
>
> Of course women priests isn't the only hope for overcoming the priest
> shortage.  In addition to the hope for increased celibate male vocations
> that has been mentioned, we have not discussed the married clergy as a
> possible solution.
>
> We have married Roman Catholic priests now, so this seems like a much
> more acceptable solution since the 'valid' is not in question, and 'licit'
> would just take a stroke of the proverbial pen.  It is already licit in
> some cases, specifically those who have 'transferred in' from other rites
> or from the Episcopal church.  And scripture arguments are also strong in
> that the Apostles were married, weren't they?  Or does that mean that only
> bishops can be married? :-)

I also sincerely hope that the RCC can see its way clear to lifting the
celibacy requirement for the average priest.  It doesn't solve the issues
concerning women, but it certainly would help with the overall shortage
problem.

>
> BTW, since Episcopal orders are valid, but illicit per Rome, I would be
> interested in seeing a definitive statement from Rome that declares
> female Episcopal orders invalid.  Without that I would not be able to
> accept the 'invalid material' argument.
>
> OR - maybe this isn't really a problem, but the work of the Holy Spirit
> telling us we all must be better ministers to our brothers and sisters and
> stop relying on priests to be doing what we should be doing ourselves!
>

I wouldn't hold my breath looking for a definitive statement from Rome on the
Anglican decision.  Given the controversy with the US Bishops and the
now-infamous (and now-rejected) pastoral letter, I think that Rome will just
let the whole thing stew in limbo rather than make a definitive statement that
will cause more grief.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:30:24 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: Public worship

Michael I Bushnell (mib@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU) writes:

>So, its fine to have a Christmas service on public land, but you can't set up a
>creche there and leave it.

Actually, this may not hold in some jurisdictions.  Here in Grand Rapids, MI, a
local Jewish group regularly constructs a menorah on a public area downtown.
This same public plaza contains the city offices.

Another group, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, challenged the
erection of the menorah.  It was banned by one court, with this decision being
upheld by another, higher court.  A couple of days ago, the Court of Appeals
decided that the two lower courts were in error, that the menorah display was
constitutional for the very simple reason that the city had a policy of allowing
private groups to erect displays on the plaza and they couldn't single out the
Jewish group simply because it was religious.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
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, 20 Nov 1992 14:32:03 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Importing priests

On Nov 18,  9:57pm, "Edward J. Branley" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Priest shortage...
} 'importing' priests from Ireland, where there also appears to be no real
} shortage.  The archdiocese here would cover the expenses of the seminarian's
} last two or so years, in exchange for coming here to serve.  I think the
} program worked out on the whole, in spite of losing a few priests to the
} temptations of secular life in America.

        Indeed.  The Archdiocese of LA has a large number of priests
who are all graduates of All Hallows Seminary in Dublin.
}
} On a side note, that 'American pride' you mention isn't what worries the
} Vatican.  It's the American pocketbooks that do make a difference.  The
 Vatican
} ignores the US at its peril, like the United Nations does.  If financial
} support for the RCC dwindles here in the US, the shockwave will be felt all
 the
} way back to the Holy See.

        I'm really not that concerned.  For one thing, most support for
the Holy See comes from places that either are obligated to provide it
(bishops) or would never think of anything but increasing it (e.g.
Knights of Columbus).  Besides which, the Holy See's budget is less than
the average large diocese's  (I believe it's about $85 million a year).


}
} Wait.  Africans you say?  Won't work, at least down here.  I'll be willing to
} bet that there are many parishes which would fold before accepting a black
} priest on a regular basis.

        Then fold they should, since they've already left the Catholic
Church (at least partly) by denying the validity of its orders.
}


--
* 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.
In marriage, as in war, it is permitted to take every advantage of the enemy.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:17:43 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
 <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu>

In article <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu>, jdd@db.toronto.edu
(John DiMarco) says:
>
>U14663@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>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

 How do you know that there are no women who wish to be priests? If no women
are called, than there is no harm in changing the rules, is there?

>Patriarchs are being faithful to the will of God in their refusal to conform
>to popular demands for the "ordination" of women?

Where has God said this? Where is it in scripture. Proof please.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Apparently-To: amanda@intercon.com, catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:59:41 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 19-Nov-1992 1854" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Priest shortage

>More interesting to me is the case of Old Catholic women priests, ...

Which Old Catholic Churches have women priests?

Note that an Old Catholic Church in Europe is a place where an Anglican
and a Roman Catholic can go to the altar together.  Old Catholics in Europe
are in communion with Anglicans, and R.C. Canon 844 permits Roman Catholics,
under some circumstances, to receive communion from Old Catholics.  However,
the Polish National Catholic Church in America terminated sacramental
communion with ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada over women's
ordination.

/john