HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG ((Gordon C. Zaft))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:45:29 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)

On Nov 3,  4:42pm, MICHAEL ALEXANDER MCKAY wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
} In article <199211021708.AA08694@caritas.cotdazr.org> you write:
} >
} >	What's your basis for this?  The point about alcoholism (and
} >homosexuality, too) is that drinking too much ("alcoholic acts" as it
} >were) hurts the person AND society.  We make the same point for
} >homosexual acts.
}
}  I fail to understand this point. Homosexual acts per se cannot hurt the
} person, for if sex (and related activities) are done in the spirit of true
} love and affection -- and this condition certainly exists among
} homosexuals -- then it is beneficial and edifying. And as for homosexual
} acts hurting society, you're going to have to explain that to me.
}  Now, I can understand how the abuse of sex can harm both individual and
} society, but this is something that is blind to sexual orientation. If you
} are referring to this, then you should be aware that this aforementioned
} harm is a POSSIBLE result of the abuse of the sexual act and not a definite
} result of sex per se.
}  But, Gordon, please explain your point to me in greater detail...
}-- End of excerpt from MICHAEL ALEXANDER MCKAY

	Well, homosexual acts hurt the person involved by putting him
in the state of mortal sin, thereby alienating him from God and making
his soul spiritually dead.  As for society, society is hurt by mortal
sins of this kind because it encourages and leads others into mortal
sin (and potentially their condemnation).

	I'd like to see a basis for your statement that sex (and "related
activities", whatever those are) cannot hurt the person if done in the
spirit of true love and affection.  I see a great deal of evidence
to the contrary in Scripture.  Now, if you want to argue about the
relevance of scripture that's a somewhat different topic.



--
* 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.
The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.
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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:15:54 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Nature of US electoral college

On Nov 5, 10:49pm, Lubosh wrote:
} Subject: thanks
} with what came from the Electoral College (and that's what only really
} matters in U.S.democracy)... Surprisingly the Electoral college didn't
} give any vote to Perrot, and it gave about twice as many votes to Clinton
} than to Bush. It shows how the forces are distributed in the political
} arena... Anyway, good luck to you with the new president (we don't have
} one in Australia, and we don't care :-) The summer is here, so let's get
} out to the beach !
} Lubosh
}-- End of excerpt from Lubosh

	It seems from this posting that there is some confusion as to
how the US electoral collge works, so I thought I would explain (don't
worry, a lot of Americans don't understand it either).

	The President and Vice-president are not elected directly by
the voters; rather, they are elected by electors (the electoral college)
who are voted for by the voters.  Electors are grouped by state; in
all but a couple of cases it is 'winner take all' where the person
getting the largest number of votes in the state gets all its electoral
votes.  Thus, even though Clinton only had 5% more votes than bush
in the popular vote, he had 370 electoral votes vs. 160-something for
Bush.

	The number of electoral votes a state gets is the total number of
its senators and representatives; therefore the bigger states have more
clout.

	Hope this helps.

GZ

PS Lubosh-- thanks for your excellent 'Quo Vadis' series.



--
* 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.
A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b13
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:06:13 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Women's ordination yet again *sigh*

> Does this stop God from doing it with the grape juice and honey-nut
> bread? No, of course not. It was God who chose the bread and the wine in
> the first place, and God can certainly choose what God wants to
> transform. All the church can say, is that it can't be sure what
> happened when that poor bishop said the mass with the grape juice and
> honey-nut bread. There is no assurance that it became Jesus's Body and
> Blood. But the church also can't say with any certainty that it didn't.
> That would be limiting God's power.

Jim, I agree with you here (which should come as no surprise :)).  This is,
in essence, the kind of reason that I cannot agree with doctrines based on
the idea that "if it is not mandatory, it is forbidden," whether those
doctrines concern the sacraments or any other aspects of the life of the
Church and the people of God.

It is the (often heated) assertions concerning what God does not (or worse
yet, *cannot*) do that I cannot accept.  I am not willing to say that God
does not or cannot transform grape juice or a loaf of sourdough into the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ.  I am not willing to say that God does not or
cannot call women to sacramental ministry.  I am, in fact, not willing to
place any limits upon the scope of the works of the Almighty.  It is not our
place to do so.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:56:37 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 13-Nov-1992 0118" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: FWD: Something for the mailbag

James,

Your reply to the posting written by Tobias Haller, which was originally
sent to Louie Crew, and by him to the episcopal list, and by Brian to Free
Catholic, really didn't deserve the polemics you wrote.  Vatican II asks
that we approach ecumenism in a manner that promotes amity and a spirit
of collaboration without a spirit of polemics.  Let's try to do that,
with God's help.  Please.

Responses like "Catholics are not surprised to hear ..." are unnecessary.
Anglicans aren't surprised to hear anything Tobias wrote, either.

Properly trained Anglican and Roman Catholics know that the Virgin Birth
is a Christological doctrine; improperly trained Anglican and Roman
Catholics (there are some in all three parts of the Catholic Church --
Anglicans have no monopoly on ignorance) might be confused about what
is Christological and what is Marian.

You also wrote:

>Note that Hooker mentions all the sacraments except--anyone?--that's right,
>the Holy Eucharist, which Vatican II called the source and summit of the
>Church's life.

Bzzzt.  Wrong.

Hooker didn't write any of what you just read.  Rather, Tobias Haller, the
author of the message claimed to be writing in Hooker's style.

And Tobias did, indeed, mention the Eucharist, which the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer calls our principle act of worship.  You might not have recognized
it:  He used the phrase "both the sacraments instituted by Christ" which
means "Baptism + Eucharist".  The other five were instituted by the Church,
which, BTW, _does_not_ reduce the fact that they are also sacraments.

A lot of the rest of what you wrote was probably based on the fact that
you thought you were reading the words of Hooker, and not just the words
of one random Episcopalian.

You are, however, correct to point out that there is not enough unity of
faith within the Anglican Communion.  Some people regard it as a feature,
others regard it as a bug.  Any unity/diversity conflict is going to have
aspects of both.

Let's look for unity in our diversity; see where the diversity is practice
and not doctrine, and not worry about practice, but worry about how to make
our doctrine conform, so that we can be in communion with each other some day.

    ... on the day when -- God willing -- the unity of faith and of
    Christian life is restored, ...  There will be no seeking to lessen
    the legitimate prestige and the worthy patrimony of the piety and
    usage proper to the Anglican Church when the Roman Catholic Church
    ... is able to embrace her ever-beloved sister in the ...
    Communion of the family of Christ...  -- Pope Paul VI.

/john
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG ((Gordon C. Zaft))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: post-election thoughts
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:25:41 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)


	Well, as we all know Bush lost.  Prop. 110 here in Arizona
was defeated 30%-70%.  On the bright side I heard that Prop. 161
(euthanasia) was defeated in California.

	I feel a little lost and I'm very worried that we will lose
all the gains the pro-life movement has made in the last few years.
With Clinton basically promising open season on the unborn it looks
grim.... but perhaps this is God's way of telling us that we haven't
prayed enough; that we've tried too much to do it on our own instead
of relying on Him.

	My prayer is that the new President will live up to most of
his promises -- but that he will see that 1.6 million abortions a
year is a travesty and a crime in our society.

God bless,

Gordon


--
* 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.
Many receive advice, few profit from it.
From: covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM (John R. Covert 06-Nov-1992 2105)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:14:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu

I wrote:

>> 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.

|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
replied:

>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.

Well, I was thinking of John 20:23, which, in the NAB, says:  "If you
forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they
are held bound."  However, I acknowledge the references in Matthew 16:19
and 18:18 might have a broader interpretation.  But someone will have to
convince me.

Are you sure the annulment process is based on the "bind" concept?  Isn't
it a procedure to investigate the validity of the original marriage bond?
In any case, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is performed not by the priest,
but by the two participants; the priest pronounces the Church's blessing.

>Even when Bishop LeFevbre (sp?) was excommunicated, it was for consecrating
>a bishop, not for ordaining priests.

And that was for disobedience to Rome -- a consecration without following
canon law.  Not sure what it has to do with "binding" -- LeFebvre had the
authority any bishop has to consecrate other bishops; canon law determines
whether he can do it and still remain in communion with the Church.

/john
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia)
Subject: Re: Cardinal Ratzinger
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:44:10 GMT

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

>On Nov 5,  3:22pm, Eric James Ewanco wrote:
>} Subject: Re: Nature of List--Fossil
>} Excerpts from catholic: 5-Nov-92 Re: Nature of List--Fossil
>} waldbill1981@ISCSVAX.UNI (5372)
>}
>} > I appreciate the liturgy when it is focused on Christ alone and NOT on
>} > the community. (As Josef Cardinal Ratzinger recently said, When people
>} celebrate the community, they are celebrating nothing.)
>}
>} More evidence that His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger is full of it and has
>} lost sight of the Gospel.
>}-- End of excerpt from Eric James Ewanco

>	Eric, calm down.  I think the Cardinal is being quoted out of
>context.

>	FRom what I have seen and read he is very orthodox.  The traditionalists
>love him but he doesn't quite take their point of view.

>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.
>If it pours before seven, it has rained by eleven.


I am one of those that love Msgr. Ratzinger's teachings and I do not
see what is wrong with what he said. Although it is in the bible that
"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I shall be in their
midst.", the focus on the community is not complete unless God's 
presence is not acknowledged. This is what I think is very different
between the protestant churches and the catholic church (pardon the
small case, I'm not up to it), that the protestant churches focus on
the liturgy and its application to the people's lives. In essence, 
the liturgy has stopped lighting fires in their hearts and has
become an instruction manual for going to heaven. The point, in my
own arrogant opinion (perhaps), is missed as to why one should
strive to reach heaven. Is it not the eternal company of God, in his
love, and not because it is "nice" to be in heaven. In this sense,
if we do not remember that we congregate for God, with God, then
we congregate for nothing (except for socials).

With arrogant humility,
Angelo Paguia
From: cawcolli@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Wayne Collins)
Subject: Early Christian Church
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:25:22 GMT

	I'm interested in learning something about the early developement of
the Christian faith, the first 100 years. Can someone direct me to
books/authors that will provide me with an objective viewpoint. I'd like to
read works that really help seperate fact from fiction. I hope this is the
right newsgroup with which to consult. If you can assist, please e-mail me
at the above address. Thanks.



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:35:25 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92111218150611@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU> writes:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:14:44 EST Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
>ignorance and lack of intent is as easily justified.  Perhaps someone more
>knowledgeable on the Church's teachings about sin can clarify the matter for
>us.

I am not necessarily more knowledgeable on the Church's teaching, but I will
try to give what I understand it to be.
1) Sin involves a) an objectively bad action, b)knowledge of the objectively
bad action, and c) consent or intention of the will to do what is understood
to be an objectively bad action.

a) Some actions (abortion, murder, lying, adultery, steeling, bearing false
witness, idolatry, etc.) are always objetively bad actions; some actions
are objectively bad actions in some circumstances, and objectively good
actions in other circumstances (e.g. reading the newspaper when I should be
feeding my children, as opposed to reading the newspaper when I have 
discharged the normal daily duties and responsibilities invovled in being
a husband and father.)
So it is true to say in a sense that no action is objectively sinful, since
one has to add conditions b) and c) to rise to the level of sin.  But
it is false to say no actions are objectively bad actions.  And when it
is said that some actions are objectively sinful what is meant is that they
are objectively bad actions which with knowledge and intention are sins.
There is also a distinction between bad actions which are gravely bad and
bad actions which are not grave.

b) Knowledge of the bad character of an action is not a yes or no, it is a 
contnuum.  One may have better or worse knowledge of the bad character of an
action.  The better the knowledge, the more culpable of sin the actor is
in performing the bad action.  If the intellectual capacities of the knower
are impaired by a pathological condition or by bad teaching, culpability
is also mitigated.  Though one can be responsible for not seeking help
for one's pathological condition, or for ignoring the teachers one ought
to listen to.

c) Consent of the will is also not a yes or no, but a continuum.  To the
extent that one gives greater consent of the will, or more intention, one is
more culpable.  And one's will can be more or less effected by pathological
conditions or external coercion.  You can see the parallels with b).

2) Full or sufficient consent of the will with adequate knowledge of the
seriously objectively bad action involves one in grave sin, which makes union
with God impossible without repentance.

3)  Refraining from doing evil is not equivalent to doing good.  A parallel
but opposite analysis as the one above in 1) is required in order to do
good, i.e. objectively good action, involving knowedge and will.

Hope this helps the discussion.
Peace,
John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:44:23 -0600
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation

> 70's.  Have you read what passes as a religious instruction book or set
> of beliefs lately?  It is a lot of relativist feel-good, touchy-feelie
> oatmeal

Bryan, as far my own experience go, I have to agree with you 100%.
My two oldest are in Catholic school and I was shocked at the
"coloring book" they use for religious instruction.

One particular thing that I remember was a picutre of the 12
year old Jesus in the temple the caption was something along
the lines "When Jesus was lost, some of the rabbis taught Jesus
about God".     Well that's not the sense I get from reading Luke !

My oldest will be having his first confession/eucharist this
school year.  The book he must complete for the Sacrament of
Reconciliation reads to me like so much pop psychology.  There is
no sense at all of what sin is (no I don't expect 2nd graders
to get into deep theological expressions).
I have been supplimenting this with at home instruction.

joel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:40:51 GMT

In article <9211070203.AA22416@alsvid.cs.cornell.edu> "William E. Aitken" <aitken@CS.CORNELL.EDU> writes:
>> Women are forbidden to be in the sanctuary during liturgy, period.  It's
>> hard to act even as a modern altar server if you cannot be present in
>> the sanctuary.
>
>	Could you please give us some evidence of this.  Perhaps

Gladly.  The Roman Missal Sacramentary.  English translation prepared by
the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.  Catholic Book
Publishing Company, NY 1985.  Concordat cum Originali by Reverand John
A. Gurrieri, Exec. Director, Bp. Commission on the Liturgy, National
Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Revised according to the second typical
edition of the Missale Romanum (1975), March 1, 1985, for use in the
dioceses of the USA.

Page 51, subchapter heading: Appendix to the General Instruction (of the
Roman Missal) for dioceses of the United States of America.  Paragraph
66(a):
"With the exception of service at the altar itself, women may be
admitted to the exercise of other liturgical ministries.  In particular,
the designation of women to serve in ministries such as reader, cantor,
leader of song, commentator, is left to the judgement of the pastor or
priest who presides over the celebration in light of the culture or
mentality of the congregation.

Page 30, subchapter heading: General Instruction of the Roman Missal,
Fourth Edition, 27 March 1975
Paragraph 65:
The acolyte is instituted to serve at the altar and to assist the priest
and deacon.  In particular, it is for him to prepare the altar and the
vessels and, as a special minister of the eucharish, to give communion
to the faithful. (this last requirement is modified in the US by
instruction for the creation of the ministry for special eucharistic
ministers.)

Need any more citations?  Give me a minute or two...
(yes, I actually read the Sacramentary...)
>citing current, definitive Church documents.  Pay special attention to
>explaining how this doesn't contradict the Canon which provides for
>qualified lay persons (of either sex) to assist infirm and blind
>priests, the Liturgical Law which allows Conferences of Bishops to
>specify where female readers are to read (and the decision of both the
>American and the English Bishops (among others) that it be the same
>place as where men do, even if in the sanctuary), and so on.
>
It seems to me that we are talking about two things here: please define
how the restriction on women serving as acolytes has a bearing on where
women (and men, for that matter) perform their ministry of lector. 

BB
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Advent Prayers...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:31:24 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

I'm glad to see that discussions around here have been staying on a fairly even
keel lately.  I've been thinking of a way to contribute something to the group,
much in the manner of some of the regular postings that folks have been making
of late.  I don't have either a wealth of good resource material or a scanner,
but I think I've found a way to offer a little something back to everyone.

With Advent rapidly approaching, I'd like to put together a list of prayer
intentions that would be submitted by everyone reading this list.  I'll then
divide them up and post them in four parts, before each Sunday of Advent.  As
I've said before, the readership of this list may be diverse, and we certainly
all don't agree on many issues, but there is a strong faith here, and I feel
that we should put that faith to some good uses.

So, if you have some specific prayer intentions, feel free to email them to me
at this address.  Let's skip the more generic types of intentions that we all
hear at Mass on Sunday and focus on things affecting individuals here, if
possible.  I'll start putting the list together, and perhaps I can find some
short Advent prayers or reflections to go along with them.  I'll post it all up
before each weekend, and perhaps we all can find some time for a quick Rosary,
or whatever you prefer.




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic