HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:37:02 PDT
From:         FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Peer pressure and grape juice

> > The recent obsession with grape juice is an old Protestant idea which
> > orginated in the idea that alochol is evil (which is a re-hash of an
> > ancient heresy). Try telling Our Lord at Cana and at the Last Supper
> > that alchol is evil.  It just doesn't work.
>
> The reason is not because alcohol is bad, but because some communities
> have recovering alcoholics who need to avoid wine.  As St. Paul says, we
> should never do anything that causes a brother to fall.

    Actually it is an old Protestant idea.  I have many protestant
friends who have had it ingrained in to them that having alcohol
is as great a sin as murder.

    I remember driving through Bakersfield on my way to San Francisco
about 12 years ago.  My friend was flipping through the radio channels
when we heard a Bible program.

    The moderator of the program was Protestant but he had a very
"Catholic" view on scripture.  A young woman caled and asked him
whether "Our Lord Jesus Christ drank wine?"  He hesitated for a
second and told the woman "Yes, Jesus did drink wine."  He cited the
Cana wedding, the Last Supper, the party at the tax collectors, and
explained to the woman that wine was like water during those times.
The woman had remained silent while he gave the explanation.  When he
had finished he didn't know if the caller was still there so he asked
for her name a couple of times before she answered.  She was crying.
Then she said "it's all a lie, I've been lied to all my life, " and
hung up.

    Yes there are recovering alcoholics in every community.  But the
responsibility for them to remain recovering rests on them.  Offering
wine at Church during the Eucharist is not a tempting by the
community.  It is freely offered to anyone who wishes to partake.
It is not mandatory.

    Frank
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re: English translation
Summary: my dictionary says...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:18:24 GMT



     Hi.

     My "Universal Latin Dictionary" by Langenscheidt says:

     homo, hominis:   masculine,  a man;   pl,   mankind


     When I look up "human" on the english side, I find 'Humanus'

     If my source is right, then "et homo factus est" becomes
     "and became man."

     Any of you Latin scholars out there, am I reading it correct?

Karl
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Authority on the Church...
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:03:35 GMT

In article <01GPN2Q6SE2O8WWEU4@umassd.edu> Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU> writes:
>I don't understand how a Pope is chosen.  The previous post suggested
>that since the USA gives alot of money, the next pope could be chosen
>from the states.
It sure did!
>Now, I thought the Pope was hand-picked from God to carry on the
>church.  Why does money come into it?  Is Peter's successor chosen
>because of money???  Or does one become 'special' after one is
>chosen???
>
>						Liz Moreau

Right on Liz.
John

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:52:21 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Opus Dei

Wow, Opus Dei again.

I have had some experience with Opus Dei, not a lot, much of it
secondhand reports.  Nearly all secondhand reports I have of it are
negative.  I know a Protestant woman who is concerned about her brother,
involved in Opus Dei, because they refuse to allow him to talk to his
family over the phone.  I have heard that they are elitist, and they
don't think very highly of Protestants, or any Catholic who associates
with them.  They seem to be very strong in proselytizing for their
group, I don't know why.  I actually got to talk to a guy from O.D. once
and visited their house.  It seemed too Catholic to me, so I wasn't
really interested, plus my Catholic roommate said he had experiences
with the very same group I had visited and he did not like it at all
(and this guy is more Catholic than I was).

I really should pick up a book about it.  I hear so many things about
the organization.  It has official Papal approval.  Its founder is up
for canonization, but there was a scandal recently when Newsweek
discovered, much to the consternation of Rome, that in the discussions
for Monsignor Escriva's canonization, certain opponents had been
silenced, or ignored, or some such parliamentary rule had been violated
so that he could be approved.  There seems to be some debate about him
as a person and his Godliness.

My advice is to stay away from them, if you're talking about joining or
whatever.  Read some books on them.  Other than that I don't know.

Eric
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, 7 Oct 1992 10:20:54 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Not about women priests

On Oct 6,  2:05pm, noao!URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM wrote:
}
} Eric,
} The issue of grape juice has been dicussed in our parish as an alternative
} to the useof wine for our children and recovering AA's:-) There are some
} in our parish that are as adamant about alcohol as you are of ordaining
} women:-) I think we get around that "It just isn't" issue since everyone
} does recieve a consecrated Host, so even if you don't drink the "real"
} wine (blood) you have received communion. As for me, I don't like the
} taste of wine anyway:-) Yeah, I know, no class:-)
}-- End of excerpt from noao!URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM

J.J.,
	Aside from the horror I feel at the whole idea of grape juice at
Mass.... does your congregation understand that they most certainly
do not need to receive under both kinds in order to fully receive the
body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ which is truly present
in either the host OR the chalice?  It sounds from your post like people
think if they don't receive from the Chalice that they're somehow missing
something.

GZ

--
* 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.
Choose variable names that won't be confused.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:17:24 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Peer pressure and grape juice

Excerpts from catholic: 9-Oct-92 Re: Peer pressure and grape..
waldbill1981@ISCSVAX.UNI (2857)

> Lay reception of  the Precious Blood at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not
> supposed to be the norm in the Church (this is obvious in the documents of
Vatican II and in the General Instuction of the Missale Romanum).

That's funny, according to my priest the rubrics say that the faithful
should be offered every opportunity to receive under both kinds.  I will
recheck the Vatican document that addresses that very subject.

> The recent obsession with grape juice is an old Protestant idea which
> orginated in the idea that alochol is evil (which is a re-hash of an
> ancient heresy). Try telling Our Lord at Cana and at the Last Supper
> that alchol is evil.  It just doesn't work.

The reason is not because alcohol is bad, but because some communities
have recovering alcoholics who need to avoid wine.  As St. Paul says, we
should never do anything that causes a brother to fall.

I know of no Catholic church that offers only non-alcoholic wine because
alcohol is "evil."  Personally I would avoid reception under any
non-alcoholic elements unless I knew for sure that it was valid.

Eric
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Anglican Church Question...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:14:12 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, writes:

> >development of conservative Anglican churches.  Would you characterize these
> >reforms as more of a fringe response to mainstream Episcopal policies, or as
> >serious backlash?
>
> Some us us would like to think they are a fringe response.  I hope we're not
> fooling ourselves.
>

I hope you're not, either.  BTW, got your email note on this, thanks for the
info.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
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:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:20:10 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones

On Oct 11, 12:37pm, "(William E. Aitken)" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones
}
} 	Of course, as I have already pointed out to this list,
} _Inaestimabile Donam_ has no legislative power of its own, but rather
} merely re-echoes prohibitions of the GIRM and the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
} Therefore, if the prohibitions of these documents cease to bind, it
} too ceases to bind.  Clearly the prohibition of the 1917 Code no longer
} binds: the entire code has been replaced.  As I have already pointed out
} to this list, some Canon lawyers believe that the prohibition in the GIRM
} has ceased to bind.   In order to substantiate the claim that those who
} employ female Altar servers are in clear violation of Church Law,
} what is required is a clear and unequivocal legislative or judicial
} statement that prohibits the use of female Altar servers, and that post-dates
} the current code of Canon Law.  This prohibition may be either universally
} or nationally binding.   I know of no such statement.
}-- End of excerpt from "(William E. Aitken)"

	There was an excellent response to this very question in
the Sept/October "The Catholic Answer" (not to be confused with
"Catholic Answers", Karl Keating's apologetics group -- TCA is a
magazine put out by _Our_Sunday_Visitor_ and edited by Fr.
Stravinskas).  While it's true that the language in the 1917 code
was removed from 1983 code, the CIC does not supersede the 'appropriate
liturgical books' as I think the phrase is.  These books include the
GIRM and _Inaestimabile_Donam_.  Furthermore there have been several
letters from the appropriate Sacred Congregation confirming the
prohibition.  Finally, as Fr. Stravinskas points out, the 3rd draft
of the NCCB's women's pastoral asks the Holy See to consider the
possibility.  One does not ask permission for things that are already
licit -- this is an admission that female altar servers are, in fact,
prohibited.

GZ

--
* 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.
Sign on bank:  "FREE BOTTLE OF CHIVAS WITH EVERY MILLION-DOLLAR DEPOSIT."
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Catholic vs. non-Catholic
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:28:13 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:

> On Oct 9,  6:03pm, "(Edward J. Branley)" wrote:
> } Subject: Catholic vs. non-Catholic schools
> } Anyway, I'd like to hear from folks who have their kids in public/private
> } schools and send them to Sunday school (or Saturdays as it is in some
> } parishes).  Are you satisfied with this?  If you could, would you prefer
>  having
> } your child in a parochial school?
> }-- End of excerpt from "(Edward J. Branley)"
>
>       While not a parent, I thought I'd add my 2 cents...
>
>       I think one of the best things about Catholic schools is that they
> are the 'Great Equalizer'.  If the kids are required to wear uniforms
> (as at most schools) it knocks down the importance of being the
> best-dressed at school (my eldest niece would be horrified at the
> prospect!).  The fact that you have kids of all backgrounds there is
> a good introduction to the Catholicity (universality) of the Church.
>
>       I also think, in general, that parish schools deserve all our
> support, including constructive criticism where necessary.
>

Hmmm...the school my son attends now requires uniforms, so that issue is a wash
for us.  As to support, I have a problem with unconditional support for any
institution, particularly when my son's education is involved.



|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:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:04:54 -0500
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Dave Jansing writes:
>While I agree with you that homosexuality is not a choice, it is biological,

I guess it depends on the day of the week.  I just read a newspaper article
 about
a study of identical twins who were separated.  The researcher
did remark that many sexual aspects did seem to match (e.g.
likes black leather) , homosexuality did not seem to follow strictly
genetics.   This, however, is not the point I am trying to make.

> Isn't it ridiculous to
> say to a person, we accept you for who you are (that being homosexual) but
> we ask you to deny those basic human urges (that being sexuality) that you
> have instinctively (because you are born with your orientation).  This is
> the greatest argument FOR homosexual unions.

Dave,

I am a sinner by birth, and my nature is to rebel against God, and thereby sin.
Should anyone ask my to deny these basic human urges ?
What about the alcoholic ?  Studies indicate that it too may be 'inherited'
and thus those who suffer from it have no choice, should we ask that
they deny the urges to drink ?

Now someone might say that alcoholism is destructive (physically and
 emotionally)
and therefore there is a clear case that it is separate.  But then
we also have Scripture which which warns of spiritual destructive power
of homosexuality (and to be realistic, a lot of other things that
many of us do).

Christ did welcome the tax collector , adulterer, and  prostitute.
But He did NOT welcome their sinful behaviour (and to even out the
score, neither did He welcome the pride and arrogance of the Pharisees
of the time).

The church, in Christ, should embrace all who wish to have a relationship
with God.  It can do so, but in a way that accepts the person as
handiwork of God, without permitting that person to believe that
some things are not sinful, when in fact they are.


Joel Neisen				 joel@msc.edu
Minnesota Supercomputer Center		"Mock not the worn cloak"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:55:32 GMT

"(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:

>On Oct 9,  3:11pm, "(David Jansing)" wrote:
>} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
>}
>} While I agree with you that homosexuality is not a choice, it is biological,
>} I can't quite bring myself to see eye-to-eye with the Doctrine of
>} Homosexuality.  If it is biological, this means that it is part of the plan
>} of God, God created these people with their specific color hair, specific
>} color eyes, and yes, with their sexual orientation.  Isn't it ridiculous to
>} say to a person, we accept you for who you are (that being homosexual) but
>} we ask you to deny those basic human urges (that being sexuality) that you
>} have instinctively (because you are born with your orientation).  This is
>} the greatest argument FOR homosexual unions.  If we wish to support the
>}-- End of excerpt from "(David Jansing)"

>	Whoa, there!  Just because God made you a certain way doesn't
>imply he will you do certain things.  For example, if a (heterosexual)
>male has incredible libido and wants to go impregnate a different woman
>every night, by your argument above God made him that way so it's okay.

But if a gay person wants to enter into a loving, monogamous relationship,
should we be able to judge that his lifestyle is wrong?  If he is biologically
created gay, then he should be able to seek out a life partner just as those
of us who are heterosexual are able to do.  Why condemn the gay person to a
life of solitude because of his natural difference?

>	The point is, being homosexual is a cross to bear; from what I
>can see, a rather heavy one.  Nevertheless, the teachings of Jesus and
>His Church are quite clear.

The teachings of His Church might be somewhat clear.  Where does Jesus say
anything about gays in the Bible?  I want to know where in Matthew, Mark,
Luke or John there is anything that Jesus /said/ about gays.  (I am aware
of the passages in other parts of the New Testament, as well as the Old
Testament.)  

>	There are a number of dioceses doing very good outreach work.
>There was an article in Our Sunday Visitor a few weeks ago about the
>work of Courage, a ministry for gays to help them live celibate lives
>in accord with Church teaching.

Again, I ask: is it fair to ask a gay person to not seek out a life partner?
Besides the fact that Paul preached against homosexuality, do you remember 
where he talks about how it is better to be celibate, but if one cannot deal
with temptation, then it is better to take a wife.  Could not the same apply
to gay men and women.  Would it not be better to permit them to enter into
monogamous, lifelong unions rather than have to deal with temptation?

Just wondering...


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: mayo%cs.utk.edu@mathcs.emory.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:17:09 EDT
Comments:     Resent-From: <catholic@dragon.COM>
Comments:     Originally-From: mayo%cs.utk.edu@mathcs.emory.edu
From:         catholic@DRAGON.COM
Subject:      praying the rosary

I am interested in how others pray the rosary.  My priest gave me a
little hard back book, "The Scriptural Rosary", that has a Bible verse
to read with each 'Hail Mary'.  While I cannot always use this book,
the meditations carry over to the times I pray in my car or other places.

Sometimes during Lent or Advent, when I have the time, I meditate on
the Stations of the Cross while praying the fifteen decades, using the
Resurrection as the fifteenth station.  This is particularly edifying
in a church with beautiful stations.

Besides the standard prayers of the rosary, do any of you add other
prayers?  After Mass on Saturday we say the "O my Jesus ..." Fatima
prayer after each decade, and we pray for the Holy Father at the end,
but we do nothing else.  When I pray privately, I say a decade prayer
Mary requested at Conyers:

	"God our Father, please send us holy priests, all for the
	 Sacred and Eucharist Heart of Jesus, all for the Sorrowful
	 and Immaculate Heart of Mary, in union with Saint Joseph."

I know there must be other traditional prayers or methods of praying.

Jane Wallace Mayo		| Jesus, Redeemer, have mercy on me
mayo@cs.utk.edu			|    and set me free.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Both Species
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:07:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.163239.7464@iscsvax.uni.edu> waldbill1981@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>Lay reception of  the Precious Blood at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not
>supposed to be the norm in the Church (this is obvious in the documents of
>Vatican II and in the General Instuction of the Missale Romanum).

Not so obvious to me.  See GI 240

240.The sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in
that form the sign of the eucharistic meal appears more clearly.  The intention
of Christ that the new and eternal covenant be ratified in his blood is better
expressed, as is the relation of the eucharistic banquet to the heavenly
banquet.

The restrictions I see are about taking the blood from THE CHALICE.  The laity
should use separate goblets of the appropriate kind.
 
Also note GI 6 all you anti-no-kneelers :-) out there, as well as those who
don't like holding hands at the Our Father  (not 'My Father' BTW).

6. This instruction is intended to give general guidelines for celebrating the
eucharist and also norms for each form of celebration.  In accord with the
Constitution on the Liturgy, each conference of bishops may establish
additional norms for its territory to suit the traditions and character of
the people, regions, and various communities.

Apparently the bishop of San Bernardino diocese has permitted the no-kneeler
church, and that's good enough for me.  I'll be only to happy to kneel where
this is not the case.  Likewise, if I visit a parish that does not hold hands
during the Our Father I would consider it rude on my part to do so.

Bob
--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Anglican Church Question...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:40:15 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM> writes:

>
> They are almost certainly much more conservative (both politically and
> liturgically), and probably much more "Protestant" in flavor than a
> contemporary mainline Episcopal parish.
>
> The easiest way to find out more information, though, would be to simply call
> the phone number on the sign.  I'm sure they'd be quite happy to describe how
> they are different from a mainline Episcopal parish :)...
>

Yeah, but I'm a bit hesitant about calling.  If they're that conservative,
they're not my cup of tea, in any case... :-).  Thanks for the info.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:01:18 EDT
From: Jeff Brooks <JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Pastoral vs. Authoritarian


In article <009621F9.71BA3380.22161@swdev.si.com>, "Brian Tillman, Smiths
Industries, VAX Support, says:
>...
>recognizing that forcing two people to remain in a situation (such as you
>described) that is not life- and love-giving (anti-God) is often the better
>choice.

But is it marriage that is supposed to provide love and life, or the two
individuals who have married?  Thomas Howard proposed that marriage could
best be described as God's primary school of charity -- the place we learn
how to love others BECAUSE THEY ARE GIVEN TO US TO LOVE, even when we feel
unloving, even when they seem unloveable.  This makes a lot of sense to
me.  Does God only expect us to love those who we find loveable?  And leave
if it should become hard, to find someone easier to love?  Or is marriage
just an opportunity to RECEIVE love?

NB: I work with victims of domestic violence and child abuse in my off-work
    hours.  I know that there are marriages that are physically or emotionally
    dangerous to those involved, and a greater betrayal of the purposes of
    marriage.  But declaring that we can "get out" of a marriage bears the
    same relation to God's purpose, as I see it, as a license to cut classes
    has to the purpose of education.  If a lecture is difficult to follow,
    does that make it anti-education?  Or part of a difficult education?


   Jeffrey A. Brooks                  (304) 293-5192
   IBM Systems Group                  jeff@wvnvm.wvnet.edu
   West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing
   Morgantown, West Virginia  26505

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic