HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM (John R. Covert 05-Nov-1992 1906)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:15:21 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu

My DECUServe cohort Brian Tillman | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
writes:
>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.

Brian, that was clearly refering to sins.  The sacrament of Reconciliation.
It's as irrelevant to Holy Orders as it is to the Eucharist or to Holy
Matrimony.

What you're saying is tantamount to saying that if a bishop consecrates
life-savers and Coca-Cola, that they are the Body and Blood of Christ,
something I don't believe for a minute.  Or that if a bishop pronounces
a brother and sister man and wife...

Invalid matter cannot be ordained, consecrated, married.

Now, I'm not fully convinced that women are invalid matter, but I see a
number of problems with women's ordination (not for me but for some men
who oppose it and for some women who favor it), at least until the serious
sexuality issues that are part of the women's lobby get resolved, and I
don't believe that the Episcopal Church had the authority to make such a
drastic change in the Apostolic Order of things without at least agreement
in principle from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox bishops.

On November 11th, the Church of England will vote on the issue of women's
ordination.  A fateful day is ahead of us.

/john
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG ((Gordon C. Zaft))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Legislating morality
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:12:23 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)

On Nov 4, 12:21am, "(Haig Kasab)" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Legislating morality
}
}    My point is that the Christian community is doing itself a disservice
} to proclaim that non-heterosexuals should be condemned for being who they
} are, rather than what they do.  Just as it is natural for a heterosexual
} couple to use physical intimacy to reinforce their relationship, is it
} too much to ask that homosexual couples be afforded the same respect?
} Now, I realize that Catholic teachings on sex have a different view than
} what I've stated above, but the attitudes are similar.

	Homosexual behavior (i.e., homosexual sex acts) are against the
law of God.  Given that (which you will disagree with, I'm sure) your
paragraph above is irrelevant.
}
}    Also, remember that the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality
} are predominantly in Paul's writings, not in the Gospel.  Therefore, does it
} not seem reasonable that Paul's divinely inspired message may have been
} altered by his humanity?  After all, none of us are perfect, and I doubt
} that Paul was either.

	My translation of the above:  The Bible really isn't inerrant.
Sorry, that is not consonant with Catholic teaching.
}-- 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.
Don't despair -- your ideal lover is waiting for you around the corner.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b16
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:37:27 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

> I've been curious about something since this debate started.  What do
> our Gay friends and their supporters think about the the many people who
> claim to be ex-homosexuals?

Well, this has been beaten to death in soc.motss over the years, and I assume
you have no wish to re-ignite a flame war :), but here's the basic summary:

Generally, the most charitable view I've encountered is that such people are
either exhibiting some disturbance (such as can result from abusive
childhoods, incest, and so on), which they (and others) confuse with
homosexuality itself (which is not statistically correlated to any
significant degree with any other aspect of a person).  The more prevalent
views are that these people are the victims of brainwashing at best.  Most
people agree that aversion therapy (which is what is usually resorted to by
therapists who claim to cure homosexuality) can suppress almost any behavior
pattern.  Whether this constitutes a cure, and whether it harms more than it
helps, are hotly debated.

I encourage us not to branch off into this discussion here--I would predict
that it will swamp the group, especially now that we are "open to the public"
on bitnet, and I guarantee that it will get very ugly.  Every past discussion
of this issue that I have seen on Usenet has exploded.

I personally plan on refusing to argue about the etiology of homosexuality
(or related issues) here, however things develop.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:40:09 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: question
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:18:50 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

bishop4559@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

> Well Brian, It is very possible that the Catholic Church in the U.S. might do
> so, through the NCCB.  It is nice to know that NO national council of bishops
> has any authority whatsoever to make any decisions which are binding on all
> Catholics.  The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL NEVER APPROVE THE ORDINATION OF
> WOMEN!  The holy father has made it quite clear that there needn't be any
> arguing the matter, because it is a mute point.  (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia)
                                      ^^^^
Moot, maybe, but you (and this issue) are hardly mute. :-)

> *When* the Catholic bishops of America approve the ordination of women, they
> will be in FORMAL SCHISM WITH ROME and I will refuse to follow.  And of cours
> I'll also be polishing up on my Etruscan!

Well, I guess all I can say to that is:  bye!



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 7 Nov 1992 02:17:52 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Faculty and Student Pro Life Organizations


I recently received a membership renewal form for University Faculty
for Life.  It occurred to me that since a lot of people on the net are
connected with higher education there may be others who would like to
know about it.  The brochure says:

    University Faculty for Life was founded in 1989 to promote re-
    search, dialogue and publication among faculty members who respect
    the value of human life from its inception to natural death, and
    to provide academic support for the pro-life position.  Respect
    for life is especially endangered by the current cultural forces
    seeking to legitimize such practices as abortion, infanticide and
    euthanasia.  We know that these topics are controversial, but we
    believe they are too important to be resolved by the shouting news
    bites and slogans that have dominated popular presentations of
    these issues.   Because we believe the evidence is on our side, we
    would  like to assure a hearing for our view in the academic
    community.

    The issues of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia have many
    dimensions--political, social, legal, medical, biological, psycho-
    logical, ethical and religious.  Accordingly, we hope to develop
    an inter-disciplinary forum in which these issues can be discussed
    among scholars.  We believe that by talking with one another we
    might better understand the values we share and become better
    informed in our expression and defense of them.


Membership is open to all current and former full time or part time
faculty members at a college or university.  Anyone who is interested
can write to University Faculty for Life, Box 2273, Georgetown Univer-
sity, Washington, DC 20057 for further information and a membership
application.  Incidentally, at the bottom of the application is this
note:

    Some have expressed concern that their pro-life stand might be
    used against them in hiring or promotion.  Sign here if you want
    your name withheld from the membership directory.


When I thought of posting the information about UFL for faculty mem-
bers on the net I realized that students are on the net as well.  I
asked Steve Frezza, the editor of the on line pro-life journal ProLife
News for addresses of student groups.  He suggested mentioning:

American Collegians for Life
P.O. Box 1112
Washington, DC 20013

and the following local and regional groups:

Pennsylvania Intercollegiate Federation for Life (PaIFL)
Write to: PO Box 10664, State College, PA 16805

Texas Students for Life: Contact Norm Richards, orb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

Ohio Students for Life: Contact Matt Glaros, MGLAROS@JCVAXA.JCU.EDU

Ivy League Students for Life: Contact Greg Wadlinger,
 Gregory.D.Wadlinger@Dartmouth.EDU

Incidentally, anyone who would like to receive ProLife News can re-
quest it from Steve at frezza@cc.pitt.edu

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm     mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 11:13:59 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, John R. Covert 02-Nov-1992 1342 wrote:

> Andrew Werling on Planet Yip   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
> writes:
>
> >I'm curious as to your theory as to WHY consensual sex is considered a
> >sin.  Why would a just and merciful god be offended by this?
>
> Because he has revealed this to his people throughout the ages.

In the Bible?  How do you know the Bible is God's word?

> >The reference to Genesis, by the way, only tells why you should not have a
> >divorce, it says nothing about homosexuals.
>
> The reference to Genesis reveals God's order of creation.

The reference reveals why you shouldn't have a divorce.  It states that
God put the two together, and so the two should not separate.  For
homosexuals, God put two men or two women together, perhaps.  Just because
he doesn't mention homosexuality in that passage does not mean he condems it.

> >Why is this sort of thing only clear to Christians?  This passage is vague
> >and murky and subject to various interpretations.
>
> Which is why we have the Church to assist us with the correct interpretation.

How about Galileo?

> >> May we die to our sinful nature and be alive in the calling of Christ,
> >> with God's help.
> >
> >Curious: what do you mean by the word "die"?
>
> It's explained in the rite of Baptism, when we let our former self die
> and are reborn in the Body of Christ.

Infants have the spiritual ability to do this?

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
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:49:56 CST
From:         narom@TELLABS.COM
Subject:      Re: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2

How do you unsubscribe?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 11:18:32 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425 wrote:

> Andrew Werling (awerling@nmsu.edu) writes:
>
> >It is my belief that humans, being natural creatures, are inable to
> >separate sex and love
>
> Well, this is just not true, as is evident in any relationship in which sex is
> not a factor.  I love my children and my parents, but there is no sexuality
> involved at all.

Of course.  But if you have a spouse, this is someone you might just have
sex with.  There *are* different kinds of love you know.  To love
chocolate is not parallel to your own personal love of your god, is it?


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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: milton@PROBITAS.CS.UTAS.EDU.AU ((Simon Milton))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Love & Christianity
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:58:17 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
              Ewanco" at Nov 5, 92 10:19 pm

Joel,

  >(from    Xwebster)    fun.da.men.tal.ism    or    fun.da.men.tal.is.tic
  \-*l-.iz-*m\ \-*l-*st\ \-.ment-*l-'is-tik\ n often cap 1a: a movement in
  20th  century  Protestantism  emphasizing  as  fundamental  the  literal
  inerrancy of the Scriptures, the second  coming  of  Jesus  Christ,  the
  virgin  birth,  physical resurrection, and substitutionary atonement 1b:
  the beliefs of this movement 1c: adherence to such beliefs 2: a movement
  or attitude similar to Protestant fundamentalism - fun.da.men.tal.ist n

Picky  picky!  I most humbly apologise for referring to "fundamentalism"
in such an ambiguous fashion.  Maybe I should have said "traditionalist"
with a capital TRADITION.

Cheers, Simon
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:05:58 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92111216103257@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>I think it is quite difficult to accept yourself when you are something
>that your Church calls sinful (excuse me, fall in love with someone and
>your Church calls THAT sinful). Most people would avoid thinking of

You still don't have it correct.  The Church does not say that the love of
man for man, or the love of woman for woman is sinful, even if that love
involves a desire to express itself sexually.  The latter is the objective
disorder.  If there is no desire to express that love sexually then there
is no disorder.  The only instance when sin is involved is when sexual acts
are involved.  You may not think the distinction is good distinction, but 
it seems you ought at least report in accurately.

J.J. has been asking lately for discussions of legitimate sexual practices 
between heterosexual married couples.  I have not had the time to look up 
the references, but when I do I will post some.  Here I will just give my
understanding of the situation: any sort of sexual stimulation of the male
and female sexual organs, primary and secondary (i.e. errogenous zones, whatever
they may be) is appropriate and good, if the intention of such stimulation
is that it is ordered toward an ordinary act of sexual intercourse in which
ejaculation occurs in the womans vagina.  So what does this mean?
(WARNING: I AM GOING TO BE A LITTLE GRAPHIC HERE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE WHAT
J.J. WAS ASING FOR)
1)Manual, oral, and anal stimulation are legitimate if the intention 
of such stimulation is that ejaculation takes place in the woman's vagina;
2)if the intention of such stimulation is that ejaculation take place
outside of the woman's vagina, such action is just as wrong for a 
heterosexual couple as it is for a homosexual couple, male-male, or female-
female.  In short, the actions that are wrong for homosexuals do not magically
become right for married heterosexuals.
3)An act of normal sexual intercourse does not necessarily end with a man's
orgasm and ejaculation in the woman's vagina.  An act of normal sexual
intercourse between husband and wife, involves the orgasm and ejaculation of
the man in the woman vagina.  And it in the best of circumstances should
involve the orgasm of the woman, but because of the particularities of the
female sexual response need not.  The conclusion of this being that if the man
orgasms and ejaculates in the woman's vagina before the woman has had an 
orgasm, it is perfectly alright and good for the man to continue to stimulate
the woman until she has an orgasm, as well as to not continue to stimulate
the woman.
4)Accidents may happen in the course of sexual stimulation, where despite
the intention of the couple that the ejaculation take place in the woman's
vagina, it does not.  
But if that is an accident, then they have done nothing wrong, since it was
not their intention.  If they intended it, it is wrong.

Peace,
John

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:17:32 GMT

In article <9211091644.AA13995@wj.msc.edu> "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU> writes:
>> 70's.  Have you read what passes as a religious instruction book or set
>> of beliefs lately?  It is a lot of relativist feel-good, touchy-feelie
>> oatmeal
>
>Bryan, as far my own experience go, I have to agree with you 100%.
>My two oldest are in Catholic school and I was shocked at the
>"coloring book" they use for religious instruction.
>
>One particular thing that I remember was a picutre of the 12
>year old Jesus in the temple the caption was something along
>the lines "When Jesus was lost, some of the rabbis taught Jesus
>about God".     Well that's not the sense I get from reading Luke !
>
>My oldest will be having his first confession/eucharist this
>school year.  The book he must complete for the Sacrament of
>Reconciliation reads to me like so much pop psychology.  There is
>no sense at all of what sin is (no I don't expect 2nd graders
>to get into deep theological expressions).
>I have been supplimenting this with at home instruction.

And this is precisely _what_ should be happening.  I remember my 
instruction for first confession-what is sin and how it affects your
immortal soul.  The sister teaching the course used a shoebox full of
marbles...you sin and some of the marbles get taken out...you confess
and repent, and they are returned to the box....the box represents the 
soul and the marbles represent grace...simple, but to a 2nd grader, 
it is somehow understandable: use those things they understand to
provide an insight or vision of what the reality may be.

As for the coloring book explaining that Jesus was taught by the
Rabbis about God...well, is this a _Roman_Catholic_ book?  :-)

It should be interesting to see how the new universal Catechism fares
(unless the modernist Boston College/Fordham/Gerogetown axis gets its
hands on it and perverts its message...) in the hands of catechists.  I
think a reform has to be started to move the instruction of our young
out of the hands of the Hunthausen/Bernardin ilk into the area of the
REAL Vatican II theologians such as Ratzinger, and the like.  Enough of
this Matthew Fox New Age Catholicism...
 
BB


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:11:56 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:51:44 GMT Bryan D. Boyle said:
>In article <CATHOLIC%92110611102324@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> DICK HAROLD
><ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
>>On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:04:55 PST <John_Lagrue.Wgc-e@RX.XEROX.COM> said:
>>>
>>>If a bishop ignores _Inaestimabile Donum_, as did all the bishops in England
>>>and Wales, then it has no force.
>>>
>>Not to be curt but where is that written?
>
>
>In the canons of the "First Church of Cafeteria Catholicism"...
>
>(no smiliey intended.)
>
Many thanks.  I'll look it up.  I need to read more about our church!

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
From: Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: thanks
Date: 5 Nov 1992 22:49:51 GMT
Organization: ANU
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.12
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 17:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.231509.6149@gw.wmich.edu> Lisamarie Gemma Babik,
91babik@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> George Bush:  58%
>
>Bill Clinton:  19%
>
>Andre Marrou:  13%
>
>  Ross Perot:  10%
Thanks to Lisamarie for doing this, at least we see that the preference
of Christians are on the side of George Bush, who didn't hesitate to
stand firm on some principles, even knowing that he's loosing some votes.
However, the elections are over, and we can also compare the popular vote
with what came from the Electoral College (and that's what only really
matters in U.S.democracy)... Surprisingly the Electoral college didn't
give any vote to Perrot, and it gave about twice as many votes to Clinton
than to Bush. It shows how the forces are distributed in the political
arena... Anyway, good luck to you with the new president (we don't have
one in Australia, and we don't care :-) The summer is here, so let's get
out to the beach !
Lubosh
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Just War (long)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:23:50 GMT

In article <17653@bcars664.bnr.ca> Henry.Troup@BNR.CA writes:
>In article <Bx5rGv.J2D@news.udel.edu>, 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen
>Barr) writes:
>|>    My view is what my conscience tells me.
>
>Which makes you a Protestant.

Hello?  How is that?


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU