HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:42:25 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Authority on the Church...

Excerpts from catholic: 6-Oct-92 Authority on the Church... Daniel
Flynn@ALUDRA.USC. (1407)

> I have asked His Eminence to see if he couldn't take the time to call our
> local internet site and answer some of the questions that have arisen.
> While I haven't received a confirmed answer, I was authorized to take e-mail
> and select the ones which could be answered, and present them to the
> Cardinal. He will attempt to answer questions, and I will do repost back
> to the group.

This would be AWESOME!!! WOW!! Tell His Eminence that I for one am quite
honored and would be ecstatic if he would deign to converse with us!

Gee, I don't know what I would ask him!

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Subject: Re: Obedience; Parish Hopping
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:28:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1992Sep27.155508.856@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel) writes:

>Jim McIntosh's recent postings challenge me greatly.

>I was unaware that, as Jim says:

>***
>Only members of religious orders take VOWS of obedience. Diocesan priests
>do not take vows.
>***

>I hope someone will correct me if I actually am mistaken, but I have always 
>been under the impression that ALL priests promise obedience to their bishop 
>and his lawful successors and promise to observe the discipline of chastity.  
>In addition, some order priests also promise not to own personal property as 
>part of the discipline of poverty while others take vows of stability, 
>promising to live out the rest of their natural lives in the monastary where 
>they took such vows.  Maybe diocesan priests are not making vows but some other
>kind of commitment that is not a vow?  Please enlighten me.  I love to be 
>challenged.

1. prom.ise \'pra:m-*s\ n [ME promis, fr. L promissum, fr. neut. of 
   promissus, pp. of (Xpromittere to send forth, promise, fr. pro- forth + 
   mittere to send - more at PRO-, SMITE 1a: a declaration that one will do or 
   refrain from doing something specified 1b: a declaration that gives the 
   person to whom it is made a right to expect or to claim the performance or 
   forbearance of a specified act 2: ground for expectation usu. of success, 
   improvement, or excellence 3: something that is promised

1. vow \'vau.\ n [ME voew, fr. OF, fr. L votum, fr. neut. of votus, pp. of 
   ]vove-re to vow; akin to Gk euchesthai to pray, vow : a solemn promise or 
   assertion; specif : one by which a person binds himself to an act, service, 
   or condition

Hmmm, Dennis, it does seem to be a fine line.  Being trained at St. Meinrad, 
it was my impression that religious take vows (solemn promise, not just a
promise) to the leader of the community (and his/her successors).  A priest
can only be removed from the priesthood by ex-communication (which usually
involves more than a simple breaking of his promises); a religious can be
removed from his/her community because of breaking his/her vows.

I really don't know of any Canon teachings/rulings regarding "parish hopping."
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing                     | "What we call the beginning is often the end
Electrical Engineering Department|  And to make an end is to make a beginning.
University of Louisville         |  The end is where we start from . . ."
                                 |  -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets"
              Internet:  edjans01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: To kneel or not to kneel...to suffer the slings and arrows...
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:51:11 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

In article <CATHOLIC%92092709090810@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>, JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh) writes:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:58:42 GMT (Dennis L Schenkel) said:
>>I want to kneel. The pastor (via slide projector) tells me to sit. My brothers
>>and sisters will be sitting.  But sitting is abhorent to me.  What should I do
> 
> Dennis, it seems that this is genuinely troubling to you, and is
> hindering your participation in the mass.
> 
> I think that your best bet would be to look around Columbus for a church
> in which people kneel during the consecration. There must be at least
> one. This is, to my mind, the best solution because you would be in a
> group with which you feel comfortable, while those in the Newman Center
> would be able to continue with a liturgy with which they seem
> comfortable.

What about talking to the liturgy committee (or its equivalent) and letting
them know how one feels?  As a member of one such committee myself, I dislike
having to operate in a vacuum.  If neither I nor my colleagues know that our
style of liturgy bothers the congregation, how are we to organize a true
community celebration?  If we don't have any idea that people are longing for
"permitted variations" (say, occasionally swapping in a sprinkling rite for the
confiteor, or encouraging the music ministry to use the organ for some
traditional hymns), how will we know to consider doing them?  

My advice is to speak up first.  Then, if the Powers that Be can't or won't
integrate an option that proves a real stumbling block to one's participation
in Mass, yes, look for a community where that isn't a problem.


* Liz Broadwell (by643@cleveland.freenet.edu) ***************************
* Department of English                       *   Cor ad Cor Loquitur   *
* The University of Pennsylvania              ***************************
                                    
Newman Centenary Celebration * 1893-1993 * 100 Years of Campus Ministry!
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:         Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:45:34 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject: Omnipresent? (was Re: pre Vat II?)

On Oct 2, 10:12am, "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,    wrote:
} Subject: Re: pre Vat II?
} Ernest (ern@unix.cis.pitt.edu) writes:
}
} >                            I'd much rather go to a Catholic church
} >without "warmth" and without a great teaching ministry than any non-Catholic
} >church because, even if I only ever know the most basic truths of my Faith,
} >JESUS IS THERE, TRULY PRESENT IN BODY, GIVING HIM SELF UP FOR MY SINS!
 Nothing
} >is better than this and nothing is more important, no matter how appealing.
}
} Judging from this statement, I'd infer that you do not believe the Christ is
} omni-present in all creation and that He did not die for our sins once for
 all.
} Somehow, this just doesn't jibe with Chritianity as I know it.
}-- End of excerpt from "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,

	I don't see anything in the post that refers to Christ not dying for
our sins.  What I do see is an acknowledgment of the Real Presence.

	I'm a little confused as to what you mean by 'omni-present in all
creation'... that sounds like it's dangerously close to pantheism to me.

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.
Fidelity:  A virtue peculiar to those who are about to be betrayed.
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, 28 Sep 1992 10:11:02 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      John Michael Talbot

	I attended a John Michael Talbot concert last week and I was
very impressed.  The music was great, of course, but more impressive to
me was the depth of his spirituality and the orthodoxy of his message
(*grin*).  He developed an extended metaphor of the Church as a
symphony with the priests, bishops and the Pope as the conductor
("but Jesus is the real conductor"); we all have our parts to play
and we are different, but we come together to make beautiful music
for the Lord.  The music we're given to play is not a limitation
(e.g. Church rules) but rather the basis from which our music can
take root and fly.

	It was a great concert.

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.
Use library functions.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: mysticism
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:43:09 GMT

In article <9209262041.AA15492@pegasus.com> "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

   To quote Thomas "Here revelation is essentially the human discovery
   of universal religious truth which is accessible to all people but
   which has been discovered most fully by the great religious
   geniuses of the world, such as Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed,
   Socrates, the prophets of Israel, and especially Jesus.

That's not a very good Catholic definition of revelation.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:56:12 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Picking on altar servers and Jesuits now

> Welcome to the almost 21st century dudes!!!

Yo.  If we were looking for this kind of "discussion" we'd be on
talk.religion.misc.  This is a mailing list being gatewayed to bitnet, *not a
random Usenet newsgroup.*  If you're going to participate, please try for at
least a bare minimum of common courtesy.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Subject: RE: women priests
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:03:35 GMT


    I am a newcomer to this group (just since it appeared on Internet),
so excuse me if I am going over old ground here.

    It seems to me that a lot of the discussion is not getting
anywhere, and that a lot of it is based on metaphors and analogies,
rather than substantial points.  On both sides.
 
    Has there been a pronouncement _ex_ _cathedra_ or a statement by
a Council that it is impossible for a woman to be a priest?  If so,
then it seems quite difficult for there ever to be a woman priest.  If
not, then it seems possible, however unlikely or inappropriate, for 
there to be women priests.

    Is there any reason that there has never been a woman Cardinal?  
There certainly have been laymen who have been Cardinals, and as the 
only function of a Cardinal is to be a Papal elector, would it not seem 
appropriate for the Church to show that it is not merely being 
anti-woman (in regards the issue of women priests) by naming some women 
as Cardinals?

-- 
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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:07:18 -0400
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      re:Famtima's message

I would like to have the Vassula Ryden files.  I have followed your
previous posts with interest.  Thank you for risking attacks and
taking the time to spread the important messages of Mary.  The Lord
Jesus has blessed us all through you.

Jane Wallace Mayo		| Jesus, Redeemer, have mercy on me
mayo@cs.utk.edu			|    and set me free.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: difference between vows & promises (was Re: Obedience; Parish Hopping)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:53:53 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-24425]: hermes


In article <1992Sep27.155508.856@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel) writes:

> they took such vows.  Maybe diocesan priests are not making vows but some other
> kind of commitment that is not a vow?

Exactly.  Diocesan (also called "secular") priests make _promises_, which
is a commitment from which they can be released.  "Religious" priests
(those belonging to an order) make _vows_, which are a lot harder to get
out of should the need arise.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
From: v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: sinead o'connor
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

If anyone decides to write to NBC, remember that SNL is a live
show and they didn't necessarily know she was going to do that.
I'm not saying, "Don't write"--just acknowledge that fact so they
won't think you're an idiot.

MG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: women priests (yet again)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:23:04 GMT


   I've been staying out of this revival of the women's ordination
issue, because I've already stated why the Church teaches it cannot
happen.  To me it's not worth arguing over anymore, because arguing
over it is not going to change anything.  Those who argue for it have
the burden of proof, and they have been able to give no arguments for
it but secular, anti-scriptural ones.  I will just sum it up with
these words: _Roma locuta, causa finita_.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
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:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:45:37 -0400
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      An Apology

A message I received:
------------------------------------------------------------

In article <920929085837.28e0134d@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, you write:
>Gordan writes:
>>	The Church says women can't be priests or altar servers. Period.
>
>Oh, I see, it's the period thing, women are unclean. They obviously represent
>what is dirty and icky in the world like menstruation, childbirth and sex.
>
>> GZ
>
>- J.J. (don't take this as a personal flame, Gordon, some of us Catholics will
>never grow tired of arguing for equality)

 J.J.,

 While I can't speak for Gordon about whether or not he will take this
personally nor as a flame, I will say it is in pretty poor taste, not
to mention downright uncharitable. To take a figure of speech and twist
it like this is juvenile. You know darn well what Gordon meant, and I think
you owe him an apology (or at least an "Oops, I forgot to put the ':-)' there
for the humor-impaired").

--------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I apologize to everyone I offended in my "Women are unclean"
thread. Sorry Gordon, Sorry T*m, Sorry Leonardus K. Yowono
I thought about a smiley, but chose to not include it, I guess I
feel that there really are people out there who think that women
are inferior to men. My frustration got the better of me. -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: cts@dragon.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:14:52 EDT
From:         "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts@DRAGON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Authority on the Church...

>Furthermore, Cardinal Mahoney is very progressive, and this new medium
>(to him at least) has fully caught his attention. I would try to ask as many
>questions of this man as possible, because assuming the rapture does not
>happen in the life of our current Holy Father, the we are possible looking
>at the next Pope. Granted it sounds strange that an american could have
>a shot, but those in the know bank on it.

We've touched on that Americans do contribute quite a bit to the Church,
and fund quite a bit of the world wide programs.  I've heard it remarked
that the American Bishops have become very much aware of this, and some
would be willing to use it as a lever when a new Pope is selected.  Any
one more in the know have any thoughts or comments?

  Charles
  cts@dragon.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:44:00 EDT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pre-vat II?

>the same passage.) Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
>     In the same way as the Lord was wholly one with the Father, and
>never acted independently of Him, either in person or through the apostles,
>so you yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy.
>On no account persuade yourselves that it is right and proper to follow your
>own private judgemnt.

Okay.  I was asked by Brent to state some of my differences.  I
honestly don't know if this is the list for it, but I will address MY
feelings on the above statement.  I can't agree with it.  Maybe it was
true in Ignatius' time, but I don't believe it is now.  Look at our
clergy and bishops.  In Massachusetts (and other places) clergy are
getting arrested weekly.  Don't get me wrong, I feel for these people
and pray for them for how far they have fallen and I don't feel that
all clergy are bad because of a few.  But let's face it, we are all
human - clergy and bishops alike.  I don't follow a man.  I follow the
Lord.  If the hierarchy's teachings go along with the Bible, then its
fine with me.

>This makes perfect sense when you see how Mormons, Baptists,Presbyterians,
>etc. can all have wildly differnt teachings on things, but base them all
>strictly from Scriptural passages. There is a reason God chose to establish
>a single church, not thousands of different ones (IMHO of course! :)   ).

You can't put Mormons in with this group.  Mormons mostly follow
Joseph Smith's teachings and not the Bible.

						Liz Moreau
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: sinead o'connor
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:03:54 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

pol30546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peder Larsen) writes:

>I think I'll have the address within 24 hours.  I'll post it as soon as I
>get it.  NBC has been flooded with calls already about Sinead and EVERY
>one was negative in nature.

   While 1) I don't believe in censorship and 2) I am not a practicing
Catholic, I am still very disturbed Sinead O'Connor's action on Saturday
Night Live last weekend.  While I figure that she has every right to her
own opinion and to express it, I still question WHY she did it.

>From the rock-n-roll newsgroup: people are now saying that she is upset with
>the Catholic Church for MANY reasons (apparently the Church is the source
>of everything evil in her eyes, with the Pope being the embodiment of that
>evil).  Among her complaints: abortion, poor, AIDS, homosexuals, war (the
>church has caused many in history she says), extravagence within the church,
>etc.  The list goes on and on.

   I have some of the same problems with the Catholic Church that Sinead
O'Connor does -- contraception, homophobia, AIDS hysteria, women's rights --
I still think she shouldn't have done what she did.  There are a lot of
ways to express one's opinions.  The way she chose alienated Catholics.  
She might have started a dialogue, but instead she chose to insult and 
inflame people. 

   I guess maybe I'd be less irate if she had some sort of focus for her
actions.  Rather than saying something like, "I think that the Pope needs
to show more compassion for AIDS victims," she chose to tear up his picture.
At least if she'd said something that indicated what her problem is, then
maybe it would have gotten people thinking.  Maybe she wouldn't have changed
any minds, but at least she wouldn't come off looking like, well, a bigot.

   I interpret her tearing of the Pope's picture as an insult to Catholics.
Had she given some focus to her criticism, I might at least have been able
to accept it.  But you can't even argue with her because she hasn't even
said what's really bothering her.

>Another interesting point was made that she may have guessed incorrectly as
>to how her American audience would take her performance.  I guess she is
>more understood in Ireland.

  I don't know: I have this feeling that she may really have angered a lot
of Irish too.  Remember that Ireland is extremely Catholic.

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:38:21 CDT
From:         "(Edward J. Branley)" <elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US>
Subject: Re: Obedience; Parish Hopping

"(Bryan D. Boyle)" <rex!ERENJ.COM!bdboyle> writes:

> Direct quote out of the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
>
> Parish: ...Up to the council of Trent, parishes were for the most part,
> territorial entities with loosely defined boundarires.
>
> THe Council of Trent decreed that parishes be established with definite
> geographical boundaries and that the pastor, or parish priest, have
> jurisdiction only over the faithful who resided within these boundaries.
>

Ok, so what's your point?  I don't seem to remember too many automobiles at the
time of the Council of Trent.  Also, the Church still wielded a bit of temporal
authority at that time.  Times have changed a great deal since.

>
> Parishes are territorial in nature.  The law also allows for the
> establishment of parishes based upon rite (say, the Melkite...),
> nationality (I grew up next door to the "polish" church, but attended
> the "french" parish...:-)).  Such parishes are called personal parishes,
> since they are composed not of all persons in a territory, but of
> persons having some similar quality.
>

Hmmm...does that same 'law' have anything to say about kneeling? :-)

> >say you are bound by geography.  Here in New Orleans, we have a neighborhood
> >where two churches were built almost across the street from one another, one
> >for the Italians in the neighborhood and the other for the Germans.  One
> friend
> >
> >A lot of the rule about going to the parish you are territorially
> located in has to do with the educational system, and the need for
> a parish that has a school to be able to judge the amount of resources
> that
> it has to dedicate to that school...
> >

Which is precisely why single people and married couples without children have
the opportunity to be more flexible in choosing their parish.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic