HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjtatz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert J Tatz)
Subject: Re:      apologetics?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:57:16 GMT

In article <BwyJ24.L6u@rice.edu> mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:
>Okay.  As a Protestant who does believe in the reality of the sacraments, 
>Use the Bible.
>
>Much of Catholic teaching is surprisingly Biblical.  If more Catholics would
>read the Bible they would not get caught flat-footed so much.
>
>Good luck,
>Ernest
>
>
A good reference book is "Upon this Rock: Scriptural roots of Catholic
teaching" by Chantal Epie.  Each chapter has topics such as the church,
sacraments, liberation from sin, Mary and the saints.  From the back
cover - "The present work is the fruit of some twenty years counselling
young people of many different religious and social backgrounds, and her
[the author's] deep interest in biblical and theological studies."

* Standard disclaimers apply *
Bob          rjtatz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      RE: Question about divorce
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:15:20 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <0096337D.938CB880.11335@swdev.si.com> "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM> writes:
>Ted Schuerzinger (zed@Dartmouth.EDU) writes:
>
>>What should I do in this situation?  Feel free to pray that I do the
>>right thing.
>
>The "right" thing to do is to let your father decide for himself.  He's a big
>boy now and has had lots of experience taking care of himself.  He had to decide
>*on his own* that he wishes to seek annulment or divorce.

Whoa!  Lighten up.  Ted asked a very heartfelt question prompted by the experience of living in a home for years.  As an adult now, he certainly is capable of
talking about and discussing this situation with his father.  I saw nothing
in his posting that indicated he intended to make any decision for his father.

>
>Frankly, you have no evidence that he does not find the arrangement to his
>liking.  Yes, it bothers *you*, but *he's* the one married to her.  Try to keep
>your own feelings of discomfort from clouding the issue.

It seems to me that you have no reason for telling Ted that he has no evidence that 
his father does not find the arrangement to his liking.  First he has lived in
this family for years, you have not.  Second, he indicated in his posting that
he had in fact discussed this situation with his father, and his father had
indicated his problems.  Don't you think the charitable attitude to take here
is to take Ted's thoughts and questions at face value, and if you are going
to give him advice, give him advice that proceeds from that charitable attitude?

>
>Personally, my wife handles a *lot* (all?) of the machinery of keeping the
>family functioning.  By having this responsibility, she also has the "right" to
>dictate how things will go.  I can't just jump in and say, "I'm sorry, but
>you're bossing me around and I won't do it."  I can, however, negotiate for
>changes to things I don't like.  I suspect your father could too, *if he so
>chooses.*
>

Why do you have this suspicion?  Do you know Ted's father?  If not then your
only knowledge of his father comes from what Ted has told you of him.
So why don't you trust Ted?

Peace,
John
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:25:33 GMT

In article <921109133247.3f209a78@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>John,
>Please go on, you say it is a sacrament of _character_ in a philosophical
>sense. What _character_ differences are there in priests which set them
>apart from any other person, or what _character_ difference would you
>say that a woman who feels called to the priesthood is not capable of
>having? It seems some people are hung up on the mother/father concept,
>to me, a parent is a parent, and I would have no problem with addressing
>a priest as Mother Joan if no other suitable colloquialism is found:-)
>My idea of God is of a parent, with the best traits of what we have
>traditionally associated with mothers and fathers. -J.J.


You are confusing two different senses of character here. Something the other
John was explicitly distinguishing, when he said he was not referring to
'character' as it is used in the 'question of character' in politics.  The    
character is 'being called by God'.  I can perform the physical actions of
consecration, but unless I have this character of being called by God,
I am not performing the sacrament.  It is a further question of what intrinsic
characteristics a person must have to be called by God for this particular
ministry, and to have this character imparted to the person.

You say, "some people are hung up on the mother/father concept."  I take
it you include the second person of the Trinity in that generalization, since
he taught us to call God our Father.

I would have to say, that for me a parent is not just a parent, given that I
proceed form the uterus and suckled at the breast of one and not the other.

Peace,
John
From: esler@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Renew process
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:40:09 GMT
Reply-To: esler@apollo.hp.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I'm interested in hearing about the "Renew" program too.  In
particular I'd like to hear some impressions from anyone who has
actually participated in it.  I have read some very scathing
criticisms of this program.

--
Kevin Esler //hewlett-packard/cso/nsg/std/clo/mll (MA Language Lab)
esler@apollo.hp.com   (508) 436-5979
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re:      RE: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:11:40 GMT

    While Catholics surely agree to the weight of such a document, it
seems clear that there was no citation of an ex cathedra pronouncement
nor of a Council, so I assume that none exists on the subject of female
ordination.
-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Early Christian Church
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:25:33 GMT


   I highly recommend reading _History of the Church_ by Eusebius
(Penguin Classics), written I think ca. AD 400.  A good contemporary
history of the early Church, it gives a good idea of what the early
beliefs and practices were (you'll likely recognize them).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:20:00 EST
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality
              12 Nov 1992 08:19:10 MST from <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:19:10 MST Brent Winiger said:
>      Do our Gay friends on this list think these people are for real?  Do you
>think maybe they are just deluding themselves?  I don't mean to be offensive
>(although I guess I never let that stop me before!), but I haven't really
>seen this issue addressed by the Gay supporters, and it does appear to be a
>significant issue.

I do not think that sexual identity is black or white. I think there are
shades of gray. Kinsey's study in the 50's reported that something like
one third of all adult men had at least one adult sexual encounter to
orgasm with another man. No one would seriously propose that one third of
the male population is gay. I think it is certainly possible for someone
who has some capacity for gay sex (ie, is a "Kinsey 2" or "Kinsey 3") to
decide that upon reflection he or she prefers sex with members of the
opposite sex. They might (depending on their circumstances) describe
themselves as being "cured of homosexuality".

Secondly, if you watched that 20-20 episode to its conclusion you would
have found that almost none of those men who were "cured" were able to
keep from "straying" back into sin. Even the man who was married to the
Asian woman and had a small child (who seemed the most sucessful at being
"cured") admited to strong and persistent desires to have sex with a man.
Articles I have read about groups like Courage contain the same
conclusion. These men are not "cured"... simply encouraged day by day to
resist acting on their natural impulses.

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
themselves as the scum that society has always said that gay people are.
It is easier to think that with enough effort you can become that perfect
person that society wishes you to be. It is this desire for conformity
that some psychologists, such as the one on 20-20, and groups like
Courage prey on.

The fact that these people, despite constant and sustained effort, are
unable to change their sexual orientation is one of the strongest
indicators to me that homosexual is not a choice. The other is the
inability to understand why someone would chose a behavior which could
cause them to be beaten, fired, thrown out of their apartment and denied
basic human rights? Why would someone choose to be gay during the time
the Nazis were rounding gays up and gassing them in concentration camps?
It makes no sense.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: djo7613@hardy.u.washington.edu (Dick O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:47:43 GMT

We don't have altar girls these days.  We have presider's assistants, of
both genders.  Let me explain what I see as the distinction (at least in
our parish).

I was an altar server as a lad; learned Latin and the whole nine yards.
Even had to re-learn it all in English before I "retired" in high school!
The role of altar server included many duties that aren't a part of the
liturgy today, such as reciting certain prayers (in Latin, then in English)
FOR THE PEOPLE, such as the Confiteor, the Orate Fratres, etc.  I seem to
recall that we were called "acolytes", and considered a formal step on the
way to full ordination.  We reminded people when the Elevation occurred by
ringing bells.  We even had to provide a continual presence at "40 Hours
Devotion" (anyone remember that?) FOR THE PEOPLE who couldn't be there 
themselves.  So, in many ways, we were a lot like the priests, in that we
performed certain duties and said certain prayers in place of the 
congregation getting directly involved.

Things are different now.  The presider's assistants just act as silent
helpers, holding the book of prayers, taking care of candles, cross, and other
items needed in the processions, and setting the Table.  They no longer
speak/pray FOR THE PEOPLE; instead the people are responsible for involving
themselves in the worship.  They're simply not altar servers, serving the
congregation anymore, but just helpers for the presider.  I don't see this
as semantics, but a truly functional difference.  And so I don't see what
all the fuss is about.  Your mileage may, of course, vary!  :)

-- 
"Moby" Dick O'Connor                         djo7613@u.washington.edu 
Washington Department of Fisheries           *I brake for salmonids* 
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 15:00:52 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Homosexuality & Christianity

On Nov 6, 12:59pm, "(Simon Milton)" wrote:
} Subject: Love & Christianity
}
}   This  newsgroup  seems  to  have an overly fundamentalist flavour and
}   also appears to have clouded debate concerning several  issues,  this
}   being  just  one,  abortion being another.  Do I not live a Christian
}   life?  Does my boyfriend not live a Christian life also?  Many of you
}   will  answer  no to both of these questions.  Frankly, I only have to
}   answer to God, and as far as I can reason and observe, God would only
}   bless  our relationship.  My boyfriend and I love each other and this
}   alone is the most important thing - the love between two human beings
}   irrespective of sex.

	Does your last sentence mean you would be willing to live a
celibate lifestyle?
}
}   Why  is  it  that fundamentalists believe that they alone possess the
}   truth? I'm not impressed by the arguments treating homosexuality as a
}   disorder and homosexual acts as soul-destroying.  It is probable that
}   most if not all of you (fundies) have  no  idea  about  a  homosexual
}   lifestyle  and  might  assume  that  all homosexuals are paedephilic,
}   promiscuous, hateful, selfish, violent and damaged individuals.  Some
}   may  be  homosexuals themselves;  others will know people they assume
}   are "normal  heterosexuals"  but  the  truth  may  be  quite  to  the
}   contrary.

	I'm definitely not a fundamentalist.  I know fundamentalists, and
they disavow me completely! :-)  I do not think  that all homosexuals are
pedophiles, promiscuous, selfish, hateful, etc.  In fact, as the old
line goes 'some of my best friends are gay'.  They are a joy to be around
and I love them dearly.  Nevertheless, in giving into their sexual urges
they are sinning.
}
}   Once again elements in the Church choose to  ignore  the  POSSIBILITY
}   however remote that ones sexuality might just be God given - and thus
}   beyond our choosing.  Have many of you contemplated that?

	The question isn't your sexuality, but what you do with it.
And yes, I have contemplated that.  What you choose to do with your
sexuality is obviously not beyond your choice.
}
}   I have never consciously !chosen!  to be homosexual.  I simply am  in
}   !love! with a person of the same sex as mine and I find members of my
}   sex attractive.  I am attempting to live a Christian life.

	As am I.
}-- End of excerpt from "(Simon Milton)"



--
* 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.
DAMN IT, I GOTTA GET OUTTA HERE!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:37:48 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject: Re: Love & Christianity

Well, it looks like I have to agree with joel. Simon should be relieved that
we don't really have any fundamentalists here, else they would have began
a search for him to put him to death. Of course, if we don't hear from
Simon again, well, let's not think about that:-)

Eric, isn't it possible that homosexuality is another of God's plans for
population control?  ...and as far as sexual acts altogether..
What do you think is God's purpose for female orgasm? Should making love
cease once the male orgasms? Is it perhaps a sin if both married partners
don't orgasm at once? Or does anything go between a married couple?
Maybe someone could direct me towards the Church's "fundamental" position
on these. (These questions seem to fit under Love and Christianity to me,
and I'm not trying to be offensive, believe it or not:-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 16:04:00 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Bellarmine on Galileo

In article <921110132557.28e45c68@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
says:
>
<<Stuff deleted>>
>The point was 'how will we know if we don't give them a chance?'
<<Stuff deleted>>

How will we know if we do give them a chance.  If a bishop tries to
ordain a woman, how will anyone be able to tell whether or not she has
received the powers of the priesthood?

If the woman then tries to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, how will
anyone be able to tell whether it was a valid Mass?  How would anyone
be able to tell whether the bread and wine she offered and tried to
consecrate actually was transubstantiated by God into the Body and
Blood of Christ or if it remained bread and wine?

-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Just say know to Gnosticism"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: hi, Angelo!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:01:33 GMT

    If there are any questions you have about science
and religion, or physics in particular, just post them
and we will see if we can shed any light on them. If
you want to discuss these things privately, just e-mail
me. Physics will be a refreshing change for some of us
from some of the other things discussed here! Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:42:22 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 12

                    Thursday, November 12, 1992
                    Josaphat, Bishop and Martyr

Philemon 7-20               Psalm 146           Luke 17:20-25

                  CROSS-CULTURAL EVANGELIZATION

"I, Paul, ambassador of Christ and now a prisoner for Him, appeal to you for
 my children whom I have begotten during my imprisonment." --Philemon 9-10

    Paul led to the Lord Onesimus, a runaway slave and fellow prisoner.  Paul
had also led to the Lord Onesimus' owner, Philemon.  Paul converted both
slave and owner, both poor and rich.  In his ministry of evangelization, Paul
even did the unthinkable by converting both Jew and Gentile.

    Most people come to the Lord because of the witness of someone like them.
It takes an amazing person to lead to the Lord people of different backgrounds.
For example, most people who would identify with and have compassion on a
runaway slave, don't also relate to the slave-owner, or vice versa.  It
requires exceptional love to care about both the slave and the owner.

    List the people you have been instrumental in leading to the Lord.  If
you observe significant differences in your convert's ages, backgrounds,
races, and economic status, then you have a love that covers a multitude of
sins (I Pt 4:8) and bridges the greatest gaps.  Evangelization is primarily
a matter of deep love, and cross-cultural evangelization is a matter of even
deeper love.

    May we love the lost more than we love ourselves.  May we have a river
of love so deep that it will cover not only those close and familiar to us
but also those far away and different from us.


Prayer:  Father, may your love impel me (II Cor 5:14) to break new ground
         in sharing my faith.

Promise: "A time will come when you will long to see one day of the Son of Man
          but will not see it."  Lk 17:22

Praise:  Josaphat helped unite Lithuanian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:26:07 EST
From: Jeff Brooks <JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
 <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu> <BxMvx5.GDx@news.udel.edu>
 <centaur.721633129@cc.gatech.edu>

In article <centaur.721633129@cc.gatech.edu>, centaur@terminus.gatech.edu
(Anthony G. Francis) says:
>                reinterpretation of Genesis is a much wider-reaching
>                reinterpretation than required to allow women priests,

But St. Augustine was already suggesting in the fourth century that
Genesis 1 was true but not necessarily literally true, and his "earlier
forms contain later forms as unexpressed possibilities" was not
considered wildly heretical in his time.  Maybe the reinterpretation
of Genesis is not as new as you supposed?  The Church has only stated
that the Creation took place and was of God, and that a first man and
women were created directly -- somehow -- and fell.  The general scope
of evolution is not affected.

   Jeff

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 11:16:37 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Joel Neisen) wrote:

> Andrew Werling on Planet Yip writes:
>
> > Curious: what if one does not believe in god to begin with?  One cannot
> > willfully sin if one does not believe in god....

> Andrew,
>
> You said that you question the existance of God.

I question everything. ;-)

> Fr. Ken Roberts in a debate with an atheist said that the atheist position
> is a no win situation.  If there is a God, then you are wrong.
> If there is not a God, then you will never know you are right  :-)

The thing is, you cannot call me "wrong," because I will readily admit
that you could very well be right.  Nothing within me or that I can
witness says that ANYONE is right!

> As much as I would wish otherwise, you are the only one that is ever going to
> convince you one way or the other with any amount of personal certainty.
> This is where our individuality comes in.
> God will not force Himself upon us, He urges us at every step, by He
> will not deny our free will.

Why does God need faith from humans?

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: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Relatives
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:07:59 GMT

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>
>    If someone out there can set me straight, I would appreciate it,
>but from the best I've been able to determine, the earth does not go
>around the sun.  Instead, according to special relativity, it all
>depends on the frame of reference involved.  
>
>John Rickert
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu

Well John it's beginning to look like nothing is real, everything is
just a set of rules and relationships.  What we though was real, like
Bohr's atom turns out to be made up of other, less solid parts, like
quarks and stuff...and I'm sure this decomposition game isn't over yet.
So, to me, it looks very much like our perceptions of reality are just
that, perceptions, there may be no 'real' at all!!!  Great fun!
 
So, yes, earth centric, or solar centric are both valid viewpoints.
When we talk about spacecraft velocities here we always have to indicate
what 'stationary' body that velocity is in relation to.

However, for practical purposes and using Occam's razor, the mathematics
for an earth centric planitary system are ludicrous compared to a solar
centric system.  And there is no scientific reason for favoring the
earth centric system.   In scientific terms it is much easier to describe
the solar centric system and use Kepler's laws etc.

So if the universe is to have 'real' meaning then I would think that the
most organized, easiest to explain description would be the appropriate
one to use, and therefore that Galileo was 'more right' than those who
held earth centric views.  Newton was 'more right' than those before him,
and Einstein 'more right' than Newton, and probably Hawking more right
than Einstein.  The beat goes on, as they say. 

It's a spectacular universe anyway you look at it though!!

Bob 'Amateur cosmologist' von Buelow

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic