HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:20:01 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "ex"-homosexuals

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992, Dennis L Schenkel wrote:

> "Sure you can stop the action, but I don't believe that you can convert
> your own inner core away from its inner nature/urges."--Andrew Werling
>
> What you say may be true, but it is irrelevant.  The Church has never said
 that
> to have homosexual urges is sinful.  A person cannot choose his or her urges.
> Sin is an act of free will.  Just as it is not sinful to be an alcoholic or a
> recovering alcoholic, yet sinful to abuse alcohol, so to is it not sinful to
 be
> a homosexual while it is sinful to perform homosexual acts.

Allow me to be hypothetical (i.e. "humor" me :) )-- IF the Bible stated
that ALL sex was sinful, what might your reaction be, as an obviously
straight male?

> If a person can come to terms with his or her urges, and submits his or her
> life to Jesus as an offering, under whatever terms, and thereby chooses not to
> commit homosexual acts, there is no sin.  This is why (IMHO) the Church speaks
> of homosexuality as an illlness, in the same way that alcoholism is termed an
> illness.

Yes, one's natural compulsion to an action is dubbed "illness."  Kind of
insulting.  Nah.  Really insulting.  If all homosexuals were
celibate--actually, if all sex were for procreation ONLY--you would have a
population of sex-deprived, intimacy-deprived, love-deprived human beings.

God would have to make suicide legal.

> I have a lot of respect for them men of Exodus.  I hope that I may someday
 come
> to terms with my own urges to overeat.  We shall see. :)

I have respect for everyone.  Natural respect.  I do not have respect for
these actions...I have as much respect for forcing yourself to go against
your natural urge as I do for taking LSD to change your state of mind.
You have the right to do either one, but both are cop-outs.  I have more
pity than respect for these people, in terms of their sadly-chosen paths.

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@dante.nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Jesus and opinion polls
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:48:35 GMT

    I thought what I said was clear. I found your various
responses totally incoherent. Jesus' point was that for
for his followers to reject his teachings, even the 
hard ones, is a betrayal of him. That is: heresy is a
very grave sin. Now, in the case of women priests
some (misguided) people apparently sincerely believe
that the Church's teaching is NOT one of Jesus' teachings.
So, these people, subjectively speaking, are not rejecting
Jesus' teachings, and so not guilty of formal heresy.
However, it is a grave thing, obviously, to depart from
Christ's teachings even unwittingly. There is always the
danger that we think we are walking with him, but actually
are walking away. We must all be on the alert for this.
I accuse no one. Everyone should examine himself, me 
included, you included. Personally, if I found myself
disagreeing with Christ's Church (which as Vatican II
taught, teaches with the authority of and in the name of
Christ) not on one doctrine, but on a whole spectrum of
issues (women priests, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage,
contraception and sexual ethics in general) I would begin
to worry. But I answer to my conscience, you to yours.
Did I compare you to Judas? No. Should that passage in
John make you nervous? Yes, it should make all of us 
nervous. Steve.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:04:57 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Separating our kids from public schools
              22 Nov 1992 16:53:42 -0500 from <patth@SCI.CCNY.CU NY.EDU>

On Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:53:42 -0500 Patt Bromberger said:
>
-----some text deleted-----

>        I had the same problem when I transferred from
>        a Catholic high school to a public high school
>        Basically, the difference was a matter of respect
>        between the students and the teachers and vice
>        versa.
>
>        The degree of peer pressure to "conform" in a
>        Catholic school was missing in the public school
>        I attended; well, not exactly, but the "conforming"
>        behavior was not towards respect or class attendance
>        but rather towards cutting classes, copying homework,
>        etc.  The basic behavior of picking a paper up from
>        the floor rather than stepping over it was completely
>        gone.
>
>        they should be tested at least as often as the students
>        they purport to teach and if they're found wanting they
>        should be recycled so they can properly "teach."
>
-----some text deleted-----

Our family moved when I was about to enter the 7th grade.  I had to
change to a public school in a small town.  I too noticed this lack
of respect and change in direction.

God had been so much a part of my younger education that I found it
strange not to have Him mentioned during class.  Nature study took on
a different meaning since He was not included in its definition.

My wife taught for several years both before and after we were married.
She finally left teaching because of the lack of respect for the teachers
and because of the many activities that took away from class time.  She
said that the students were being pulled in too many directions.

She now works in the business world but longs to return to teaching but
has no intention of doing so.  How many other teachers have left the
profession because of these problems?

In some respects the schools are doing marvelous things and in other
areas they are missing the boat.

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|        Always check your sources agian, and again, and again...      |
|======================================================================|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:06:50 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992, Liz Moreau wrote:

> The Episcopalian woman minister and also the Catholic nun talk about
> God in the 'she' form.  When they talk about God, instead of saying
> Jesus said, or He said, they will say, She said.  While this is not
> necessarily New Age teachings, it isn't what my Bible tells me.
>
>                                         Liz Moreau

Question: I have not read the bible looking for this particular issue, but
I am curious: does the bible specifically say that God is not a woman, or
does it merely refer to God as a man?

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable
        uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."
                --Faxe, in THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, by Ursula K. Le Guin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: ryanr@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Richard Ryan)
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:37:49 GMT
	<D890TB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
	<1992Nov15.182250.24107@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: College of Natural Sciences, Colorado State University

>>>>> "J." == J. Theodore Schuerzinger
>>>>> <J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu> writes:

J.> But 'Saturday Night Live' DID use a 7-second delay (or was it five
J.> seconds?) a few years back when Eddie Murphy was the guest host.
J.> Apparently they were afraid he might use some foul language.  Why
J.> can't they do that every week?

I think you mean someone else (Richard Pryor, maybe?).  Eddie Murphy
was a SNL regular.  I don't know if he still is (I doubt it), but I
think Eddie Murphy was a Catholic -- just some trivia.

See you,
Richard.
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:40:14 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>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.  

I would appreciate a more authoritative source, since what you suggest says
that basically, the only sex that is allowed is "vanilla sex," or, as George
Carlin characterizes it, "Man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick."

According to an AP story on the new catechism released recently in Paris,
the following are still "grave offenses:"
masturbation, fornication, pornography, adultery, polygamy, and unwed
sexual union.  It seems to me that anything other than penile-vaginal sex
between married persons is verboten, since sex must include the procreative
act.  It is not clear what acts would fall on the "approved for foreplay"
list, so I would be interested to see a more comprehensive source.

>(WARNING: I AM GOING TO BE A LITTLE GRAPHIC HERE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE WHAT
>J.J. WAS ASING FOR)

Hey, John, this is the same net that has alt.sex.bondage and
alt.tasteless on it, too.  I think we can handle it.


As a side note, this article also says that paying low wages breaks the
commandment against theft.  What constitutes low wages?  Who decides?  Is
Rome going to issue actuarial tables that list non-sinful acceptable minimum
wages for each parish or something?  This puzzles me. . .

-- 
  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"  
        _The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
      The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Importing priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.222110.1984@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>Which sounds better to you,
>
>"OK, rather than be excommunicated I'll go to Mass celeberated by Fr.X, but
>I don't have to like it"  or
>
>"OK, I admit my prejudice, and I'll go to Mass and try to work on
>accepting Fr. X, even though I can't accept a black man as my pastor today."

or

"If it's so bad, why isn't there a rule against it?"

   The point is, some people are so dense, or so obstinate, or so
unsubmissive to the proper authority of the Church, that nothing will
get through to them except a whack offside the head with Canon Law, if
even that.  When I was in college, in a psychology class the professor
said that the law was "the minimal acceptable behavior."  Some people
don't even follow that.  They may say they are "following the spirit
of the law," but usually they are just rationalizing trying to get
around it.  Or else they know better than those with authority over
them.

   People may talk of love over rules, but real love for Christ
includes obeying the rules that He or His representatives have given
us.  Even if they don't seem to make sense, it is more loving to
Christ to assume that perhaps we _don't_ have all the answers, and
that maybe someone else _does_ know better than we do.

   If one wants to be Christ-like, there is more to it than warm
fuzzies: "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not
his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the
shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." [ Isaiah 53:7 ]

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:47:29 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov 19

                    Thursday, November 19, 1992

Revelation 5:1-10              Psalm 149         Luke 19:41-44

                        FRUSTRATION OR REVELATION

"I wept bitterly because no one could be found worthy to open or examine
 the scroll." --Revelation 5:4

    The human race wept bitterly in frustration because it knew there was a
meaning to life but that it was impossible to discover this meaning.  The
scroll in God's hand indicates life has meaning, but the seals symbolize its
inaccessibility to us.  We are naturally depressed and weeping to know that
we can't know what we must know.

    Can anyone save us from this impossible situation?  Is anyone "worthy
to open the scroll and break its seals?" (Rv 5:2)  The answer to life's
question is: "Do not weep.  The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of
David, has won the right by His victory to open the scroll with the seven
seals." (Rv 5:5)  The Lion is the Lamb--the "Lamb that had been slain"
(Rv 5:6), Jesus.  He broke all the seals and opened the scroll.  By His
death and resurrection, He revealed the meaning of life.

    To receive this revelation, we must believe in Him with all our hearts.
Two ways of expressing our faith in Jesus are prayer and praise.  Those
before the Lamb's throne had in one hand vessels filled with incense and in
the other harps.  The incense represents "the prayers of God's holy people"
(Rv 5:8), and the harps our praises to God.  To receive Jesus' full revelation
for your life, pray and praise him.


Prayer:  Father, give me "full knowledge" of Your will "through perfect wisdom
         and spiritual insight" (Col 1:9).

Promise: "Sing to the Lord a new song of praise in the assembly of the
          faithful."  Ps 149:1

Praise:  Sandra obeyed the Lord in giving $10,000 to the missions.
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
From: waldbill1981@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Invalidity of Anglican Holy Orders
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:59:42 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ANGLICAN ORDERS

It is a fact that His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared that the Anglican church
did not (and does not) confer holy orders upon men (or women) validly.
Leo enumerated several reasons why he himself firmly believed this.
According to Roman Catholic teaching, after Leo definitively settled the case,
Anglican orders are null and void--invalid.

Some Anglican "priests" (not priests in the true Catholic understanding of the
priesthood) have been -- especially more recently -- admitted into the Roman
Rite of the Catholic Church and have become Catholic priests.  
To become priests, these men have had to be validly ordained.
Any instances where these men have not been ordained (or "re-ordained" --
depending upon one's perspective) have been and are serious abuses
according to Roman Catholic teaching and discipline.

It is a serious claim to say that Anglican "priests" who have converted have
not needed to be re-ordained or have not in fact been validly ordained by a
validly consecrated bishop (a serious claim, from the Roman Catholic point of
view).
According to Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) belief, a man who is not validly
ordained by a validly consecrated bishop (recognizing that there is a vast
difference between valid and licit) is unable to celebrate and perform the
Sacraments.

This perspective is, of course, very different from the Anglican and protestant
views of these issues.  But, then again, Catholics and protestants differ on
many issues.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.182250.24107@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>But 'Saturday Night Live' DID use a 7-second delay (or was it five
>seconds?) a few years back when Eddie Murphy was the guest host. 
>Apparently they were afraid he might use some foul language.  Why can't
>they do that every week?
>
>--Ted Schuerzinger
>email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU

They also showed a delayed broadcast of Sinead O'Connor's action on the 
Pacific Coast, as the show is not ordinarily broadcast live in the Pacific
time zone.
Peace,
John


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lagman@CS.ColoState.EDU (annette)
Subject: Re: Cd. Mahony on the new Missal 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:16:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

>>                        The Lord's Prayer
>>
>>Proposed new translation:               Current version:
>>
>>Our Father in heaven,                   Our Father, who art in heaven,
>>hallowed be your name,                  hallowed by thy name,
>>your kingdom come,                      thy kingdom come,
>>your will be done,                      thy will be done,
>>on earth as in heaven.                  on earth as it is in heaven.
>>Give today our daily bread.             Give us this day our daily bread.
>>Forgive us our sins                     And forgive us our trespasses
>>as we forgive those who sin against us. as we forgive those who trespass
>>Save us from the time of trial          against us.
>>and deliver us from evil.               And lead us not into temptation,
>>For the kingdom, the power, and the     but deliver us from evil.
>>glory are yours
>>now and forever.
	
	In the Philippines the version on the left has been in use
	in English language masses for a very long time now, 
	with a few differences:	"holy" instead of "hallowed"; 
	the 9th line is "Do not bring us to the test", and the last
	3 lines are optional.  

	I was very surprised the first time I went to mass in the 
	US that the older (from my point of view) version was
	being said, and it took me a while to get used to it again.
	Is it being changed now?

	annette
From: JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Priest shortage...
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:29:12 GMT
Organization: The American University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              18 Nov 1992 07:20:56 CST from <elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US>

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:20:56 CST Edward J. Branley said:
>While the debate over women in the priesthood should continue, it's obvious
>that it probably won't be resolved in the RCC by the end of the century.  That
>being the case, we need to initiate some drastic actions to increase the call
>to vocations.  If women are administrators in 200+ parishes, the problem of
>priestless parishes is already a grave situation.  Rather than spending nine
>years bickering over an inadequate answer to the call for women priests (the
>Bishop's Pastoral Letter), perhaps the time would have been better spent
>figuring out ways to increase the number of *male* priests, before we are left
>with no priests at all.

I think we should consider the possibility that the number of priests is
decreasing because God is calling less priests. It is possible that a
fundamental and structural change is underway in the Church, and this
change has been called for and is being empowered by God. One visible
sign of this change is the increasingly visible lay people at all levels
of the Church, and the decreasing number of ordained and vowed people.

I think the Church can delay responding to God's call for change by
ordaining married men, and then, later, women. Eventually, though, if it
be the will of God, we will run out of options and be forced to face
God's mandate that we change. If the Church holds fast on married men and
women, which is my secret wish, the change may come in my lifetime. If
she gives in, as she probably eventually will, the change will be later
and I'll miss seeing it.

Change can be a frightening thing. I'm sure it was difficult to flee into
the desert ahead of the Egyptians, and it was tough for the apostles to
leave their boats and follow Jesus. Avoiding the question will not make
it any easier. If we take the time to discern God's will, and approach
change prayfully, we will be better prepared for the what we must do.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 05:51:53 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology
 <1992Nov20.031951.1151@magn <1992Nov20.034806.1529@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Dennis,
The statements you quoted are heretical.  There is no question about it.
The fact that the priest who made these statements is a nice guy is
irrelevant.

If I had been present and therefore had direct, rather than hearsay,
knowledge of what he said, I would write to the local bishop and to
the superior general (or whatever his title is) of the Paulists giving
as many details and direct quotations as I could.

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

"Just say know to Gnosticism"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:15:09 -0600
From:         Joel Neisen <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Church of England & women priests

andy <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA> writes:
> 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?

No one said that God is not calling enough men to the priesthood.  This may be
the case, but it is not necessarily so !  (Ok, I will be direct :-),
perhaps many ARE being called, but only a very few are answering the call.
There have been times in the history of the church in which there
have been shortages of priests, etc.
There have also been times in which seminaries, etc. have been full.)

> it was because He was calling enough women to meet the shortage?
I would feel a whole lot better about this argument if the convents
were full.  If a person is called, they should be prepared to serve in
whatever capacity then can, no ?

I ask this respectfully (i.e. not to be a smart-alec),
what are are the women who are called to the priesthood doing right now ?

Joel Neisen                              joel@msc.edu
Minnesota Supercomputer Center          "Mock not the worn cloak"