HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent WIniger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:20:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:56:00 EST Jim McIntosh said:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:08:43 MST Brent Winiger asked J.J.:
>>What criteria would you use for determining which of the two persons sinned
>>and which did not?  What criteria does God use?  Shouldn't people have an
>>objective criteria to use as guidelines for their lives?
>
>Why should J.J. have to determine which of the two person sinned and
>which did not?  That is for each person to determine for themselves.

Jim, we were speaking hypothetically of two people who undertook the same
action but who had different criteria for sin.  I didn't mean to suggest that
J.J. should stand in judgement of any individual.  To say, however, that we
should not try to determine if particular actions, in general, are within the
will of God, is to close one's mind.  Thats what Christian values and
conveyance of those values is all about.

>
>Brent, is it objectively and always wrong to kill? How about during a
>war? How about killing civilians during a war? How about killing in self-
>defense?
>
>Actions are not, in themselves, sinful. The sin enters because of the
>context of the action and the mental state of the participant(s). People
>should have assistance from the Church in developing their consciences,
>but the ultimate decision on whether an act is sinful is between the
>person commiting the act and God.

It appears we don't have any disagreement Jim.  I might add though, that God
gave us some commandments to incorporate into our conscience.  To ignore those
commandments in determining our criteria for right and wrong is perilous.


>
>Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)

Brent
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:06:07 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <199211041645.AA15787@caritas.cotdazr.org> zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG ((Gordon C. Zaft)) writes:
>
>	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).
>--
>* Gordon Zaft

No, that won't do. It's an entirely circular argument: "why are homosexual
acts sinful? Because they hurt the person. How do they hurt the person? By
leading them into sin."

Can you come up with a better case as to how exactly homosexual acts harm
their protagonists? Note that this is a different question from "Does the
bible proscribe homosexual acts?" and from "Has the Church constantly
proscribed homosexual acts?"

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:06:32 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5

Marty,
I know the "scientific experiments" I suggested were irrelevant and would
prove nothing. I didn't think Steve (or anybody) would take them as
serious scientific experiments. I thought the "you surely should agree" would
clue you in:-)
Anyway, untill you show me that Jesus said that women should not be priests,
I will continue to say that your "Sacred Tradition" is nothing more than
a place for male chauvinists to hide. Paul's ban on women teaching was written
for his time. Women have amply demonstrated that they are capable of
teaching today and this part of tradition should go the way of the
geocentric universe. -J.J. (just this Catholic's opinion, obviously)
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:14:40 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Galileo and Infallibility

Steve Barr,
A very fine post on physics and the Galileo incident. I even agree with
most of it:-), but being a mushy liberal, why can't I apply this "so what?"
question to the reasons given for proscribing the ordination of woman?
The Church obviously learned a lesson, and an obvious example is that of
the theory of evolution which followed Galileo time, but if the Church
based its position of women priests on the role women were allowed to
have at the time of Christ(or even up to 100 years ago), couldn't this
be a comparable instance which has yet to be corrected? -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:10:34 EST
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
              10 Nov 1992 16:19:05 GMT from <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

On Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:19:05 GMT (Steve Creps) said:
>   A final comment: all this is Church discipline, not doctrine, and
>can be changed if the Magisterium so decides.  However, it belongs to
>the Magisterium, not individuals, to make this decision, no matter
>what one's theological motivations may be in wanting to change it on
>one's own.  There are in fact reasonable (even if you don't think
>good) reasons for why these rules exist.  As I said above, they are
>related to the priestly nature of serving at the altar, which in turn
>is related to the male-only priesthood (this part _is_ doctrine).

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.

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.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:40:26 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2

All very pretty, nicely written words, but it still is a bunch of men telling
themselves why their denial of women is just and proper.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
 Smiths Industries, Inc.     |           tillman_brian@si.com
 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129    | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:24:34 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Calif. Prop 161

On Nov 4,  3:12pm, Eric James Ewanco wrote:
} Subject: Calif. Prop 161
} Does anyone know the outcome of California Proposition 161, the
} Euthanasia bill that would legalize euthanasia in California?
}-- End of excerpt from Eric James Ewanco

	It was defeated.

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.
Change your thoughts and you change your world.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: Nature of List
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:57:03 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <CATHOLIC%92110317212958@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:

>I would challenge the assumption implied in your post that the state of
>the church should be frozen in time in the early 1960's. Unlike the
>middle ages where there were few developments, and time passed slowly,
>the modern world is changing at an incredible pace. Computers were barely
>known (the first IBM System/360 was shipped in June of 1965) and look at
>what we have today in terms of global networks. There is similar progress
>in communications, medical science and almost every area. Our
>understanding of the nature and role of women and other minorities has
>evolved. If anything, the RATE of change in our society continues to
>increase.
Granted technology changes rapidly. Those changes are morally neutral,
though - we haven't any choices more or less difficult than a woman a 
thousand years ago with two children and food for one. I would dispute
that our "understanding of the nature and role of women and other minorities"
(women a minority??) has evolved. Either you treat your neighbor as the
image and creature of God, or not. That was always true. What have we learned
to displace that?
 
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:55:27 GMT

In article <Pine.3.03.9211041131.M29506-b100000@dante> WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU> writes:
>> 	What other version of Hell is there?
>
>I'm talking the way I thought as a child.  And I'm talking basic sense
>here.  God is not compassionate if he allows souls to be tormented for
>eternity.

Why do you say this?  You seem to be claiming to know what divine compassion
consists of.  How do you know this?

>> Have you read the Gospels
>> lately?  It's quite clear that not all are received into Heaven... but
>> this is really another discussion.
>
>Yes, I'm pretty well read on the gospels.  I know what the bible says.
>But we have no proof that the bible is the "word of god."

What proof do you have that Bill Clinton is president elect of the United
States?

Peace,
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:08:19 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
              6 Nov 1992 07:04:55 PST from <John_Lagrue.Wgc-e@RX .XEROX.COM>

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:04:55 PST <John_Lagrue.Wgc-e@RX.XEROX.COM> said:
>
>If a bishop ignores _Inaestimabile Donum_, as did all the bishops in England
>and Wales, then it has no force.
>
Not to be curt but where is that written?

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Renew process
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:58:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

In our parish, the parishioners who participated were broken down into
groups of 12-15 people who met during the week to discuss faith type issues.
From what I can remember (it was closer to 6-7 years ago than 'several') the
main topic was the Gospel reading from the most recent Sunday and the
leader of each group had some general discussion questions to keep things
going. The groups were broken down also by similarities such as singles,
married with young children(mine), married with older children etc., so
often are discussions wandered off onto raising children and what to tell
      ^^^ our
them about our faith. Ther were also a couple of large group meetings on
specific topics of interest where all the groups met in a large room at
our Church. This is not a program for those of you that dislike those
horizontal, community type events. For my wife and I, it brought us very
close to other parishioners who were in similar type life "challenges",
and this closeness remains today. Of course, the downside is that it
allowed heretics,like myself, to express my views:-) The whole program was
about a year and a half long (three semesters with the summer off) from
what I remember. The first communion program for parents was a similar
type event which was happening at the same time and us liberals have
such short memories:-) -J.J.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Transcript of debate in CofE...
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:23:52 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Does anyone know if there is (or will be) a transcript made available of the
debate leading to the approval of ordination of women in the CofE?  I'd very
much like to see the resolution that was approved, along with reading the
actual debate that took place.  The news has merely provided us with sound
bites and reactions.  Of course, that's about all they can do, and I think
media coverage has been fairly balanced, but I guess the history teacher in me
wants to see the source docs.

Additonally, a question:  how long has the CofE permitted women deacons?
Judging from the interviews after the resolution was approved, there are a
bunch of women who appear to be Transitional Deacons.  My view on this is that
the approval of women has been viewed as a done deal, and ordinations are not
too far behind final approval.  Is this accurate?



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:12:08 GMT

Steve asks:
>   Bob, do you have an attribution for that?  

I typed directly from "The Liturgy Documents  A Parish Resource"

Here is what fronts the Appendix stuff (which follow GIRM):

--- start of text

Appendix to the General Instructions for the Dioceses of the United
States of America

The following notes, related to the individual sections of the
General Instruction of the Roman Missal (above), includes adaptations
made by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for the dioceses
of the United States, as well as supplementary references.
 
For further documentation concerning the eucharistic celebration, see
Congregation of Rites, instruction on eucharistic worship, May 25, 1967,
especially "Some General Principles of Particular Importance in the
Catechesis of the People on the Mystery of the Eucharist" (nos. 5-15)
and "The Celebration of the Memorial of the Lord" (nos 16-48).

The numbers at the beginning of each section below refer to the
respective sections of the General Instruction.  Unless otherwise
indicated, decisions of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
were taken at the plenary session of November, 1969.

--- end of text 

Note that I did not add the cf. references in my last post.

Hope that helps.  Wish I had a more recent printing of this book (mine
is 1980).

Bob

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:48:20 CST
From:         narom@TELLABS.COM
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Gordon:

You can't argue a homosexual out of his homosexuality,
even if you show him chapter and verse and construct
what you believe to be a sound, air tight logical case
that proves said behavior is sinful.  Human beings are
creatures who molded by external input, feelings, genetics,
and a myriad of other factors that we can't hope to
take into account.  This Re: Homosexuality thread became
a plague on soc.religion.christianity, a never-ending volley
of arguments from both sides of the fence.  You've tried to
correct your brother out of love, now let God work.  Continually
reworking the same issue sends a message to the homosexual that
he is unloved.

People bound, for one reason or another to a particular behavior
can justify that behavior as long as they are bound to that
behavior.

Let God finish what He's started through your postings on a spiritual
level through their hearts.

Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:26:39 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 10

    		    Tuesday, November 10, 1992
		  Leo the Great, Pope and Doctor

Titus 2:1-8, 11-14 	    Psalm 37		   Luke 17:7-10

	      	      	THANKSGIVING DAYS

"Would he be grateful to the servant who was only carrying out his orders?"
 --Luke 17:9

    Today and tomorrow the Lord is using the gospel readings to teach us about
thanksgiving.  In today's gospel, we see that servants should be grateful to
serve.  In tomorrow's gospel, we learn that those healed even of leprosy
weren't thankful except the Samaritan leper.

    If we try to be lord of our own lives, if we do our own thing and try to
take control of our lives, we will not be thankful people.  We will be
frustrated and upset with others for not meeting our expectations.  But
if we decide to live as servants of the Lord, we will see him orchestrate
our lives so as to manifest His love in every detail.  We will be overwhelmed
with an attitude of gratitude.  "Useless servants" doing their duty (Lk 17:10)
are the happiest, most thankful people in the world.

    After teaching us about thankful servants, Jesus pointed out that the
Samaritan leper was grateful.  Samaritans are the shamed, rejected, abused,
and hurt.  We are all Samaritans to some degree.  When we're rejected, we can
spend our time fighting our oppressors or we can rejoice that Jesus has healed
us of the leprosy of sin.  For Samaritans to survive they have to focus on
God, not human beings.  When we focus on God, we have infinite reasons for
thanksgiving.


Prayer:  Father, may Thanksgiving Day be part of a "Thanksgiving Life" of
	 serving You and focusing my life on You.

Promise: "The grace of God ... trains us to reject godless ways and worldly
	  desires, and live temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age."
	  Ti 2:11-13

Praise:  Leo the Great twice saved Rome from barbarian invasion.

-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
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: Sat, 07 Nov 92 17:58:06 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"John R. Covert 06-Nov-1992 2105" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

> 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 reaso
> >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.

The 'binding' concept seems to me to have developed more from Apostolic
Tradition than from Scripture.  Given that a pope can canonize people, which is
a conclusion that, beyond a shadow of a doubt that person is indeed with God,
is an example of this.

>
> 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.

Well, I may have been stretching things, but it goes back to 'as above, so
below.'



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