HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:34:05 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: polls and women priests

        You know, it hit me in a flash of light....

        There are those who claim that women's ordination would be the
answer to the vocations crisis.

        Well, we have the means to test that, don't we?  Is there
a vocations crisis in the Episcopalian Church?  What about the
Church of England now?  If the number goes up in the next 20 years
(not counting, of course, the thousands that will leave as a result
of the recent action) then there will be some basis for this claim.
(Of course, that doesn't prove the issue, but it is somewhat
interesting).

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.
Mind your own business, Spock. I'm sick of your half-breed interference.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:12:56 -0600
From:         Joel Neisen <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      ACLU

A few of the recent posts have brought up the ACLU.  I will state
up front I am no friend of the ACLU (or the state organization MCLU).
Haig Kasab brings up the point that the
>  ACLU is an organization that fights to ensure that the rights of all
>  citizens as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are not abridged.

I while back there was an admittedly conservative program about the ACLU.
In the program they refered to the charter (?) of the ACLU which
lists their 'agenda' one of which is what Mr. Kasab mentions.
The program indicated that this is not publically distributed, but neither
do they hide it away, that is, if you asked the right questions you could
get a copy.   Has anyone done this ?  If so, what are the
'agenda' items of the ACLU.


Joel Neisen                              joel@msc.edu
Minnesota Supercomputer Center          "Mock not the worn cloak"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Jesus and opinion polls
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:37:37 GMT

     My dear Mr. Barry, 
              John Paul is the Vicar of Christ,
              Paul VI was the Vicar of Christ,
              Pius IX was the Vicar of Christ,
     (Perhaps I should say, the Venerable Pius IX, as he has
     been so declared by John Paul.) If you will take the trouble
     to read the documents of Vatican II, you will discover that
     more than assiduous consideration of Papal pronouncements
     is required of Catholics. Actually, I am unaware of having
     called anyone Judas. It had been argued that (a) adherence
     to doctrine is legalism and has little to do with salvation,
     (b) that rejection of a doctrine by large numbers of Christians
     is evidence that the Spirit is leading the Church in a new
     direction, and (c) that if a doctrine causes scandal or is
     difficult it should be abandoned so as not to drive people 
     away. That my scriptural citation and exigesis were directed
     against these views was clear both from context and the 
     text of what I wrote. Obviously, the words of Jesus have
     made a few people run around like people who have lost
     their wits babbling incoherently. I suggest you smooth
     your ruffled feathers, listen to what your interlocutors
     are actually saying, and think less of your amour propre
     than of the issues being discussed. Steve.
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Cd. Mahony on the new Missal 
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:02:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.155016.8786@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>Gordon C. Zaft writes:
>>The following is the text of an interview with Roger Cardinal Mahony
>>that was printed in the November 13, 1992 "Tidings" (the newspaper of
>>the Archdiocese of Los Angeles).  
>>  ... article deleted
>>                        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.
>>
>
>Gordon, thanks for posting this.  I was surprised to find so few changes
>in the Our Father based on the reaction.  Looks like the same prayer
>to me, and I don't think the changes are sufficient to cause a 
>generation gap.  With all the hoopla I thought maybe it had changed from
>Our Father to Our Creator or something. 
>
>Bob
>--
>Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
>bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -

IMO, the older version sounds better, the new one sounds like a news 
story (I used to edit news stories for ABC...:)).  Is nothing sacred
anymore?

BB
From: FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU (frank lopez)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:44:26 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).

>
> That is not the goal.  The goal is to keep the government from pushing
> your god on those of us who don't even believe in him/her/it.

   The government push our God on those of you who don't?  Funny I
   wasn't aware that the government had choosen a god which it
   could push.  Last I heard we were still a godless government.;D


   Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via: uk.ac.lancashire-poly.prime1; Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:06:33 +0000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:06:39 LCL
From:         Becka <SUTTON_R_1@PRIME1.LANCASHIRE-POLY.AC.UK>
Subject:      Help I want to leave

(From Becka Sutton   )

Help, I can't cope with the amount of post and want to leave but the
LISTSERV does not like the bit at the top of my post which says (from Becka
Sutton  ) and I can't remove this.  I'm getting desperate.
Thanks and God Bless,
Becka
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:54:12 GMT

In article <6086@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:
>In article <BxxHuK.39L@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>:  Is the sex of the person being ordained a big T or little t
>:  tradition and what difference does it make to our salvation? 
>
>>   It's a "big T."  The difference it makes to our salvation is that
>>if, as the Church teaches, women really cannot be validly ordained,
>>then any priestly sacraments they would attempt to minister would be
>>invalid.  If you still say to this what difference does it make, then
>>that is the same as saying that the priesthood is of no avail, that we
>>might as well discard it.
>
>Circular argument. "Women can't be validly ordained because if they were it
>would be invalid."

   Wrong.  The question was "what difference would it make?"  I took
this to mean (and I think the same person phrased it this way
elsewhere), "What harm would it do to ordain women?"

   My answer was that since women could not be validly ordained, any
priestly sacraments they tried to administer would also be invalid.
Having invalid sacraments is certainly harmful, and that answers the
question of what harm it would do.  I was not answering a question
here as to why women priests would be invalid.

>>   You speak of God guiding the hearts of the Church and its people.
>>But you _assume_ that He is not doing a good job of guiding those to
>>whom He has entrusted His authority, and that rather _some_ of the
>>laity have the Real Truth(tm).  That's nothing more than wishful
>>thinking.

>Not "wishful thinking": a properly informed understanding of the way
> the Church has always carried out its mission.

... which contradicts the official teaching of those in the Catholic
Church whom Christ has charged to understand these things.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"catholic@american.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:37:53 -0500
From:         STRZEMECKI@MARY.FORDHAM.EDU
Subject:      Re: "Feminazism" and the "abortion holocaust"

I would like to shortly address two opinions that appeared recently in
postings on "feminazism".

Ted Frank <thf2@ELLIS.UCHICAGO.EDU> writes:

- The Holocaust was unique in world history.  Ethnic wars had been
- fought in the past, but often over land, over religion, over money,
- over some ideology.  Never before, and never since, was the sole
- purpose of a war on an ethnic people to eradicate them from the
- planet.

If WWII had the "sole" purpose, it was definitely not the eradication
of Jews. The decision about the eradication of Jews was taken by the
highest officials of the Third Reich only at the beginning of 1943.

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

- Many Jews see the Holocaust in a religious context, the issue as
- sacrosanct, which is why putting a convent at Auschwitz was viewed
- by many Jews as a sacrilige.

It is unfortunately not widely known that the convent was not situated
at the camp, which is what the above statement seems to imply. The
convent was housed in the building which was located outside the
camp's perimeter.


Tadeusz Strzemecki
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Importing priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:03:31 GMT

In article <By6ows.70o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>   Therefore, by rejecting a black priest, such people would liably be
>guilty of schism, in addition to the sin of racism.  I'll try to find
>the canon tonight.

   Here it is, Canon 751: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal
denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic
faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is
the REFUSAL of submission to the Roman Pontiff or OF COMMUNION WITH
THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH SUBJECT TO HIM." [ emphasis mine ]

   So I suppose in some cases such as the one above, one might be
guilty of schism.  I'm not certain if THE MEMBERS refers to the
entire Catholic Church, or to _any_ members of the Church.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Subject: Re:      Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:45:00 GMT

The idea of attaching either maleness or femaleness to God is surely an indication of the limitedness of the human mind.  Gender is defined by comparision, a distinction between two otherwise similar beings.  God is unique - there is no other similar being to be distinguished from
In article <921120105505.3f218679@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM>,         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
> Liz,
> You said that a minister had stated "God is she and so forth". Did you
> mean that the minister thought that she was God or that God was a 'she'?
> As I am not familiar with New Age doctrines, I need this explained to me
> a bit more slower:-) I had thought that New Age was just crystals, pyramids
> and mysticisms. Thanks -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:31:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.191153.5225@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:
>   The Magisterium was written by men to codify their interpretation of God
>and God's will.  Therefore, they made it so simply by saying it was so.

   You have this confused.  The Magisterium is not something that is
written, nor is it even any unwritten tradition.  The Magisterium is
the teaching authority of the Church, or those who hold this authority,
i.e. the bishops.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: v201lrxa@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (NOWHERE MAN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: New Catechism
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I just heard on NBC Nightly News that the Church will be introducing
a new Catechism that is supposed to contain the biggest changes since
the Council of Trent. Some of the new sins described within are tax
evasion and genetic manipulation. Anyone have any more details?

mike
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: natural urges
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:15:42 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <Pine.3.03.9211172001.I11943-b100000@dante>,         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU> writes:
EVERYTHING BUT FINAL PARAGRAPH DELETED> 
> 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

Excuse me, are you saying that if something is a "natural urge" it is one should not go against it ... i.e. for a manic-depressive in the depressive phase to commit suicide would be "okay"? ... If by "natural urge" you mean urges as God created us prior to the fall - fine; if you mean urges as we experiences them in this world - I fear watching children grow that some very selfish behavior is "natural urges" and that it is critical that we "force ourselves to do against our natural urges".  I agree wholehe









artedly that we need to respect everyone - to recognize none of us has consistently chosen the best path - to spend less time bickering over which less-than-best path is worse than the next less-than-best.  Why are we more hung up over homosexuality than thievery for example.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Catechism  
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:34:37 GMT

In article <tjrad.722551359@pv0a0c.vincent.iastate.edu> tjrad@iastate.edu (Thomas J Radosevich) writes:
>Today a fellow Grad student (who knows I'm Catholic) came into lab and
>told me my work was sinfull because the Church just declared genetic
>engineering a sin.  Any truth to this or was this another misinterpritation
>cascade?  (I know the English version is'nt due for a bit) 

   Not if it isn't human genetic engineering.  What would be sinful is
activity in which human beings were conceived in the laboratory.  I
haven't seen the new Catechism yet, though, so I'm not sure what it
says specifically.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Priest shortage...
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:43:21 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

The New York Times recently had a report of a sociological study done by a Catholic indicating that the decline in priests (as a ratio of the number of Catholics to be served) began in the 40's and appeared to be tied to the raise of other educational and professional options for Catholic boys.  It took a while for the trend to become critical i.e. for there to be parishes (rather than missions) without a priest.  My geographic parish (not the Dominican parish I attend) has a priest but he is not the pasto









r; the parish is officially headed by a nun.  I wonder how many additional parishes are headed by women, if one starts to include other situations in which women head a parish community? 
In article <L0RFuB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> This weeks _Time_ magazine cover story, entitled "The Second Reformation," is
> quite informative.  What struck me as particularly interesting were some
> statistics concerning the number of male priests in this country.  The article
> says that "Nearly 300 US parishes are without a priest, reports Ruth Wallace of
> George Washington University, and three-fourths of them are led by women.  If
> the present patterns continue, the number of male priests will have fallen 40%
> between 1966 and 2005, which will increase the demand for women substitutes"
> 
> Now, the debate over the ordination of women aside, it seems to me that the
> Vatican and the American bishops should wake up and realize that just how much
> of a problem situation we have here.  Is anyone aware of any research which has
> been done to try to figure out just why the major decline in the number of
> priests?  Of course, instinct tells me that the celibacy requirement is
> probably the number one factor, but I'm wondering if there have been any real
> studies on this.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> |Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
> |Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:12:23 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


In article <1992Nov18.144335.5956@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu
(Haig Kasab) says:
>
<<Stuff deleted>>
>
>Bryan, the tradition of Papal Infallibility may have a narrow
>application, but for Catholics and others who are obviously less
>sophisticated in the workings of the Church than you believe that almost
>anything that the Pope says is Infallible, be it a homily, letter, bulla,
>or what have you.  So, it is not incorrect to challenge the popular
>perception of Papal Infallibility.
>
>--
>  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.

Do you have any evidence that the great masses of the Lumpenproletariat
Catholics consider all papal statements to be INFALLIBLE as distinct
from authoritative?

Did you perhaps look it up in the Magisterium?  :-)

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

"Just say know to Gnosticism"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU (frank lopez)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: PMRC
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:10:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).

> What is the PMRC?


  Briefly the PMRC is the Parents Music Resource Center.  The group
  was formed and headed by our new second lady, Tipper Gore.

  The purpose of the PMRC is to be a resource for parents who are
actually interested in what their children are watching and listening
to.  They do not, contrary to popular belief, wish to censor an
artist or a group of artist.  They (PMRC) only want to provide
information on music, film, tv, etc., for parents who are concerned
with the influences these media's(sp?) have on their children.  They
(PMRC) provide parents with information such as song titles, song
content, group, artist, movie background information and such,
WITHOUT making a judgement on whether the song, record, what have you,
is morally bankrupt.  They will pass judgement on whether the item is
suitable for a 10 year-old, or even by a 16 year-old.

  This group is responsible for the caution labels you see on
recordings.  Again these are warnings that the contents may be
unsuitable but they leave that up to the conscience of the buyer.

  At first I didn't like the idea of the PMRC, that was until I heard
that bastion of enlightenment, Frank Zappa debunk the PMRC as the
brainchild of Tipper Gore a "stupid housewife of a senator," (i.e.
Tipper Gore).  I decided then and there that I needed to
look into the group a little more after hearing this extremely
logical reason for not backing the PMRC.

 Tipper Gore and a rock 'n' roll critic (don't remember his
name) debated on an episode of William F. Buckley's Firing Line.
Quite good and very enlightening on both sides of the iisue.  I
believe transcripts are available at some local libraries.

 Buckley agreed with Tipper but felt that the PMRC didn't go far
enough.  Surprised? :>

 Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:22:33 PDT
From:         frank lopez <FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: New Catechism

> >I, personally, am waiting anxiously for news that it is actually out.  Did
> >the broadcast happen to mention when the new catechism would be available?


   According to the LA Times the English and I believe Spanish
versions will be released in Early Spring of 1993.  The French
version was released on the 18th because it was the language used to
write the catechism.

   Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU