HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvisel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick E Visel)
Subject: Re: Renew process
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:14:59 GMT


We are now in a renew program at St. Francis of Assisi Parish.  While there
is some variation between churches and diocese, I think I can give an outline
that would be applicable elsewhere.  In the diocese of Columbus, RENEW is a
 two year program consisting of four six week session.  As the name implies
it is an attempt to revitalize or at least reaffirm our faith.  As someone 
else mentioned, the core of RENEW is a set of small group meetings in which
we pray, consider certain themes of a Catholic-Christian life (i.e Our
relationship to God, To Our community,  How the Holy Spirit affects our 
lives etc ) and discuss how we can apply these in our lives.
 There are two different formats that the program can follow, one
which is keyed to the Sunday scriptural readings and a second in which the
readings are tied more closely to the themes of that session and/or week.
These small group sessions are supplemented by a set of Parish activities.
(discussions, lectures, etc.- for example this week several representatives
of local food banks and soup kitchens talked about how to get involved.)
    While this is the general outline, there is a great deal of variety between
different programs.  While this is the first RENEW program I've been in, and
it hardly seems extreme in any way shape or form, people who have gone through
the program elsewhere have said that it sometimes has a very charismatic
slant, or a very "warm and fuzzy" slant etc.  Since the small groups are
basically self-directed using some pamphlets printed by the Paulist Press
it is easy to see how RENEW varies from place to place.
    We are presently finishing up the third six week session (I'm a small
group leader) and my impression of the program is generally favorable but
it is difficult to tell how much of that is the program itself and how much
is the caliber of the people who have stuck it through thus far.  The prayers
and discussion questions have all the inspirational qualities and clear 
focus of anything written by a committee :), so we tend to supplement it
freely (something which the Washington based committee that wrote the manual
discouraged but the pastor said 'go for it'. (please note these complaints are
more aesthetic than theological).
I hope this helps to give a feel of the program.
                                           Patrick Visel

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-23737]: jupiter
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:59:21 GMT


In article <9211121303.AA14874@wj.msc.edu>,         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU> writes:
> 
> Haig, What did Jesus prescribe for the case of people who refuse
> the correction of the church (Matt 18;15-17) ?

The Vatican is not identical with the Church.  The Church is the
entire people of God, and Church leaders have an obligation to
consider the experience and prayerful conclusions reached by the
faithful.  Matt 18:15-17 could just as easily be used against
narrow-minded curial officials as it could to sincere, prayerful,
Christ-like homosexuals living in monogamous relationships.

The curia doesn't have a lock on truth or the Holy Spirit, you know.
They've been wrong about things before and they're wrong about some
things now.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
From: milton@PROBITAS.CS.UTAS.EDU.AU ((Simon Milton))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Love & Christianity
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:59:35 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]


  Dear Catholic news-readers,

  I  have  been  wanting  to  reply to most of the articles critical of
  homosexual relationships, but until now haven't had the time  or  the
  inclination.

  I am homosexual AND a practising one at that.  I am also a practising
  Anglo-Catholic.  I see no conflict between my life as a Christian and
  one as a homosexual.

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

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

  Once again elements in the Church choose to  ignore  the  POSSIBILITY
  however remote that ones sexuality might just be God given - and thus
  beyond our choosing.  Have many of you contemplated that?

  I have never consciously !chosen!  to be homosexual.  I simply am  in
  !love! with a person of the same sex as mine and I find members of my
  sex attractive.  I am attempting to live a Christian life.
--
  +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
  | Simon Milton,			  | Phone : +61 02 202933 (W)       |
  | Department of Computer Science,	  | Pax vobiscum!                   |
  | University of Tasmania,		  +---------------------------------+
  | HOBART 7001.			  |
  +---------------------------------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:24:34 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Love & Christianity
              5 Nov 1992 19:32:06 MST from <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU .EDU>

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:32:06 MST Brent Wingier said:
-----some text deleted-----

>     Many homosexuals believe we "fundies" have some immense irrational hatred
>for them.  Simon, that is simply not the truth.  We recognize you as another
>human being deserving of our respect and benevolence.  We simply believe that
>homosexual acts are not God's will for us, his creation, anymore than pre-
>marital sex or adultry is.
>     I recognise we won't agree on this issue, but I'd just like you to
>understand where we are coming from.  Its not from hate, its from believing
>in Scripture and Tradition.
>
>Brent

Simon

Remember that you are not alone when you see hate in other people.  All
of us have discovered it.  Whites hate blacks, Protestants hate Catholics,
everybody hates Jews!  I exaggerate but you get the idea.  Because I am
a Catholic doesn't mean that I do not have the ability to hate based on
nothing more than fear.  Fear that somehow the black will rub off onto me,
fear that a Protestant will change my mind, etc.

Lack of understanding also plays a part in hate.  When I was in Europe
two years ago I watched as several of the people traveling with me
ridiculed those speaking anything other than English.  The reason?  They
couldn't understand what was being said - a kind of fear.

I dislike homosexuals because I don't understand and I'm afraid.  This,
I confess, is my failure, my sin.

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:44:56 GMT

In article <EezNwZG_NU00IPO2lv@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:

>> On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:31:17 -0500 Eric James Ewanco (who I usually
>> respect even if I don't agree with) said:
>>
>> >Case studies show the psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage
>> >suffered by homosexuals who indulge their inclinations.
>>
>> Eric James, can you cite those studies? My experience is almost exactly
>> the opposite, and I'd love to examine these studys you say prove your
>> case.
>
>Go to your local Christian bookstore and read books on minister to homosexuals.
>A non-technical, experiential book -- written by a homosexual and expressing
>how homosexuality damaged his own life -- is You DOn't Have To Be Gay by
>[Thomas?] Konrad.  He discusses the emptiness felt by those who attempt to
>satisfy themselves through homosexual sex.

These are not "studies" worth citing in any scientific sense.  Simply
put, they're self-fulfilling prophecies; they're written by people who
were fearful and disturbed at the prospect of their own homosexuality
to begin with.  Of course these people are going to convince
themselves that they can "overcome" their homosexuality, and of course
their books are going to be negative accounts of homosexuality,

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 06:02:18 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"John R. Covert 05-Nov-1992 1906" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

> My DECUServe cohort Brian Tillman | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
> writes:
> >So, you don't believe that Jesus told the truth then when he said "What you
>  bind
> >on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed
> >heaven." do you?  Here, he wasn't speaking only to Peter.  He spoke to all t
> >apostles.  Now, the bishops are the successors of the apostles and as such
>  each,
> >in their own right, has the authority conveyed by Jesus in the above stateme
> >Thus, if a bishop ordains anyone, be it man or woman, baptised or not, *it w
> >be valid* by the authority given him (or her!) by God.
>
> Brian, that was clearly refering to sins.  The sacrament of Reconciliation.
> It's as irrelevant to Holy Orders as it is to the Eucharist or to Holy
> Matrimony.

Interesting concept.  Can you back it up?  I've always been taught that the
'binding' concept applied to *all* of the sacraments.  It's one of the reasons
the RCC goes through such an extensive process for annulments rather than
merely recognizing divorce.  Even when Bishop LeFevbre (sp?) was
excommunicated, it was for consecrating a bishop, not for ordaining priests.


>
> What you're saying is tantamount to saying that if a bishop consecrates
> life-savers and Coca-Cola, that they are the Body and Blood of Christ,
> something I don't believe for a minute.  Or that if a bishop pronounces
> a brother and sister man and wife...

Yeah, I think that's correct.  Of course, if that bishop is receiving divine
guidance, he certainly won't do those things.  And, if a bishop is not in full
possession of his faculties, I can't see where his actions would be valid.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: post-election thoughts
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:25:23 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:

> But Clinton won, not Bush. My advice to American Catholics is this: hunker do
> and brace for trouble, because the US has now both a president and a majority
> of congressmen catering to special interest groups on the left, many of whom
> consider themselves enemies of traditional (christian-derived) morality in
> general, and Catholicism in particular. The so-called "Freedom of Choice"
> bill is one example of this catering.
>

This is the exact opposite of the same sort of diatribe we heard from Democrats
in 1980.  Yawn.

FOCA only means more abortions if women choose to have them.  Our goal as
Catholics should be to promote and encourage values that will convince women
*not* to have those abortions.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: dialectic and orthodoxy
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:17:45 GMT

     If one looks at the history of doctrine one sees a
dialectical process. (I am not talking Hegel or Marx here.)
A "problem" arises when theologians find themselves with
two basic truths that are in tension or even in apparent 
contradiction with each other. In an attempt to resolve
this tension, distinctions are made, new concepts formulated,
doctrines elaborated. There are always some who attempt
to resolve the tension by snapping off, as it were one of the
poles of the dialectic. This is how heresies always arise.
Heresies are simplifications and rationalizations of doctrine.
Examples:
     (1) Jesus is man/ Jesus is God. It took hundreds of years
to develope the Chalcedonian formulation of orthodoxy. Heresies:
docetism, adoptionism, monophysitism, monothelitism etc. denied
or downplayed the first truth; Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. denied
the second truth.

     (2) God is One/Jesus is God.  

     (3) God is almighty and has complete foreknowledge/ human
beings are free. (grace/freedom) The Catholic Church preserves
both of these truths. The Protestants abandoned the second. 

     (4) Faith/works. How to reconcile the statements of Paul
that we are not saved by works with the statements like
"when I was hungry you did not feed me...depart from me you
accursed"? 

     (5) non-resistance to evil/"the bearing of the sword is
not in vain", "the powers that be are ordained of God".
How to reconcile the gospel message of peace with the
requirements of civil government? 

     (6) all of scripture is inspired/ the word of God cannot 
be in error.                            

     (7) the law of God/evangelical freedom. How to reconcile
what Paul has to say about the Law, with other scripture that
implies that we still must obey the commandments. How to
avoid both legalism and antinomianism?

     One could go through every theological controversy for 
the last 2,000 years. I won't :-). Orthodoxy has always
clung firmly to both poles of the dialectic. Heresy has
always sought the more "rational" solution of abandoning
one truth to save the other. Heresy is simple. Orthodoxy
is subtle and often paradoxical. (cf G.K.C.)

    What about women? We have the truth of the equal dignity
of men and women both created in the image and likeness of
God. We have Galatians 3:28 "In Christ there is neither...
male nor female". On the other hand we have "man is the head
of his wife", God as Father, and the male priesthood.
These two sets of truths are in real tension! Our task is
to accept each set of truths without doing violence to
the other. 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:33:57 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Question about divorce
              <humu!DARTMOUTH.EDU!J.Theodore.Schuerzinger> "Question about
              divorce" (Nov  6,  7:15pm)

Ted, I think you should honor your father and your mother and let them
manage their own marriage.  And give thanks that they are still
together, unlike many couple that have problems.  And pray that you
are given as much grace as your father obviously has received.
Shalom,                            Len Howard OSL
                                   tas@pegasus.com
s
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: FAQ for Catholic Mailing List 
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 16:32:44 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

> In article <TZ5PTB6w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >Rather than write up a FAQ that says 'the RCC's position on this is ____,'
> >perhaps we can work up a listing of books/articles for each issue that discu
> >these points, pro and con.
>
>    Of course, doing it this way would be to assume that these
> "controversial" issues are debatable, a point many of us aren't
> willing to concede.
>

Agreed, Steve, but I don't want to generate a document that will require an
Imprimatur <sp?>.  Additionally, given the fact that we have more than just RCs
here, perhaps a disclaimer could be worked up that would make your feelings
clear.



|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, 6 Nov 1992 09:29:35 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Legislating morality

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:08:18 GMT Edward Harbin said:
>In <1992Nov4.002119.10842@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig
>Kasab)  writes:
>
>>   As a complete aside, the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois,
>>Idaho, has recently released that 1 in 11 rams are homosexual.  What are
>>the theological implications for this?  Aren't sheep God's creatures, and
>>moreover, not fallen?  Why should they also be imbued with this sin, as
>>it were?
>And tomcats eat kittens. Humans are so backward in these matters.

Animals are incapabel of committing sin because they lack the ability
to reason.

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:38:53 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92111101244678@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>
>Back when we were debating abortion, and the candidates' positions on
>equating it with murder, I said that laws cannot be imposed without an
>acceptance of the reasons for the law. People have a tendency to ignore
>laws they see as having no basis. Examples I cited at the time were the
>Prohibition (and that was a constitutional admendment!) and speed limits.

Your statement about ignoring laws seems to apply to all laws-- that's why
we have criminals.

>I would propose that church "laws" (or General Instructions or whatever)
>must be held to the same standard. If you say "women cannot step over
>this line" there must be some reason given which is accepted by the
>people involved. It's not good enough to say "because I said so". That's
>not working for the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, and it won't work to
>keep the women out of the sactuary either.
>
>I don't think your statement that the prohibition is "related to the
>priestly nature of serving at the altar" is sufficient. Can you come up
>with a better reason which will be accepted by the people? Even the
>average Catholic? Perhaps if the Church would actually explain some of
>her rules (rather than relying on "because I said so") the rules would be
>better accepted. Without explanation, I think most people see them as
>silly... or worse.
>

You talk an awful lot about what the Church is obliged to do here.  I think
it can be a good thing for the Church to explain its laws and 
disciplines, but I don't think it *has* to.  But while talking alot about
what the Church has to do in this regard, you say nothing of what the
individuals within the Church have to do in response.  What responsibilities
do you see individual faithful Catholics as having, even if the Church does
not provide an explanation, given that it is the Church's right and
responsibility to administer the sacraments?
From: lcuxlp!lhh@ATT.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Renew process
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:35:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>       [ ... J.J. said ... ]
>Our parish went through the Renew process several years ago, and obviously
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the second time this week that I've heard/read a reference
to the Renew process.
What is it ?

                        Thanks,
                        Len
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Attorney General
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:25:00 GMT

In article <BxKIuF.9wD@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>   Dear John, Yes, proud brother. Steve.

Gosh, what a family!  Theoretical particle physicist, and an Attorney General
of the United States.  Any other skeletons in the closet?
By the way in college I spent a semester at Argonne National Laboratory on
an internship to the High Energy Physics group.  That was when I decided 
High Energy Physics was not for me.  Congratulations on your fortitude.
Physics has taken a bad rap in the popular mind in the sense that it is
often taken to be in conflict with Revelation.  I'm glad your there and here.
Peace,
John