HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Nature of List--Fossil
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:15:54 GMT

In article <0eyM_16_NU00AC7CYe@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
>> 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.

   Eric, I think you are out of line with this.  What's more, the
quote sounds like it was taken out of context.  Community is great,
but it _is_ nothing if Christ is ignored or excluded from it.

>We need someone who is faithful not to Trent, not to Vatican I, etc.,
>but someone faithful to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as
>revealed by Sacred Scripture and 2,000 years of Apostolic Tradition. I
>think that many of the ancient Church Fathers would be just as angry
>with the attitude of the pre-Vatican II church as much as with the
>post-Vatican II church.

   Professor Josef Ratzinger was one of the theologians of Vatican II.
He is very much _for_ what was done at Vatican II.  The only thing he
is against with respect to Vatican II is what people falsely claim
Vatican II said.  For a good representation of what Cardinal Ratzinger
really believes, I suggest reading _The Ratzinger Report_ (its author
is listed as Ratzinger, but it is really an interview of him written
by someone else).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:16:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

Brent,
Why is it important that I have a criteria for determining which of two
persons has sinned or not? I have a criteria for myself which is different
than someone else. I guess I'll have to bite on your last question, yes,
as long as our actions are performed in a way we think is for loving Him
and mankind, then we are not sinning and therefore 'don't matter to God'.
-J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:25:24 PDT
From:         FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Early Christian Church

Here are two books that I know of that might interest you:

The First Century by William Klingaman.  Not a bad overview of the
    first century for not only Rome but Africa, Asia, Scandinavia as
    well.  My only peeve about the book is that the author chooses
    modern acadames inability to use B.C. and A.D. as time
    designates.  He uses something like M.T. (modern time) and P.M.
    (pre-modern).  I may be wrong in the acronym but the idea is
    there.  The problem is that these "new" designations (supposedly
    to not advocate a Christian influence) still end and begin with
    the birth of Christ!  So my question is:  Why bother?  I know
    they (acadame) doesn't like to be un-pc about things but come on,
    it's still there (the Christian influence), so use it and don't
    be afraid of it.

Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox.  Apparently Mr. Fox is an
    athiest but doesn't disagree with the validity of the Bible!?
    Interesting!  Anyway the book discusses the early Church and
    Roman paganism.  How the two school of thoughts interacted with
    each other on a day-to-day basis.  Fascinating reading!

Hope these two help.

Frank
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Travel tips requested
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:01:57 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92110412392916@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
writes:
>We will be traveling between MO and W VA over the week of Thanksgiving.
>If anyone knows of any wonderful places to visit along the way, ie
>Churches, bookstores, *anything* of interest to traveling (almost)
>Catholics, please let me know.
>
Don't miss the Basilica in Covington, Ky.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:24:07 GMT

In article <Bxny8L.Aq@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>     So what will all the agitation and pressure tactics
>and propaganda for women priests mean in the end? 
>A lot of people will come to believe that the teaching
>is foolish and unjust. When it becomes clear that it
>won't change they will become disillusioned, disgusted
>with the Church, and severely alienated. Many will leave
>the Church. We see this reaction already, but it would
>doubtless be on a far more massive scale. Indeed, it
>is likely the Church will dramatically shrink in numbers
>in the US and some other places. Will this frighten the          
>hierarchy? Yes, but they will not betray what they regard
>as their duty because it is unpopular.

In the light of recent events in the Anglican church, it is interesting
to remember that the seeds of the Anglican church were planted in an 
act of disobedience to papal authority that risked and achieved schism
of the Church in England.  I guess we continue to see that you reep what
you sow.
Peace,
John
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Sunday, 8 Nov 1992 01:05:45 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Christ (Was: Homosexuality)

Andrew,

In response to the statement "Buddha didn't claim to be God. Mohammed
didn't make that claim. Those guys are still in the ground.  Jesus
rose from the dead," you say:

"I'm talking about Jesus' contemporaries.  There were many "messiah
figures" roaming the streets and countryside.  And they all had
disciples.  The only one Christians ever mention was John the Bap-
tist, and the writers of the Bible either document or create scenes
in which J the B's possible messiahship is discounted and undermined.
(Head chopped off, things he says about Jesus, etc.)"

Before discussing the main point I want to point out an error of
fact.  You say the only "messiah figure" Christians ever mention is
John the Baptist.  However, Acts 5:36-37 mentions Thedeus and Judas
the Galilean.

The main point is that you are confusing a claim to be the Messiah
with a claim to be God incarnate.  Jesus made both claims, but they
are two different claims.  The Hebrew word "Messiah" like the Greek
word "Christ" means "anointed".  The Jews expected the Messiah to
come some day, but they expected him to be just a man chosen and
anointed by God.  Therefore, when someone claimed to be the Messiah
he was not thereby claiming to be God.

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.  More important, He also claimed to
be God incarnate, and He proved that claim to be true in various
ways.  I will not go into that now but in other forums consisting
largely of non-Christians I have discussed it at length.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm    mnhcc@ccunyvm.cuny.edu
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:42:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Whatever happened to papal infallibility?

Thanks for the vitriolic ad hominem attack on the Catholic Church. 
Attacks like these only help to separate the Christian faiths, not
unite them.  I would say that patriarchy is not a disease, unless,
perhaps, you believe Sinead O'Connor.  Jesus' attitude toward women is
made very clear in the Bible.  Are you asking Catholics to contravene
Scripture?

Even though you may disagree with Pope John Paul II, I think that
wishing for his death is a rather un-Christian attitude.  I think
President-elect Clinton is very anti-life, for example, but I will not
wish for his death so that the American people can be spared these
anti-life attitudes.

At any rate, I'll leave it up to others more knowledgeable than I to
refute this posting.

Keep the faith!
--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:49:36 -0600
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation

>And this is precisely _what_ should be happening.
Yes, but I guess I expected a Catholic school to provide
a little less secular view about the nature of sacraments
to begin with.

> As for the coloring book explaining that Jesus was taught by the
> Rabbis about God...well, is this a _Roman_Catholic_ book?  :-)
Yes, when I saw that I checked the cover, it did have a Imprimitaur (sp?)

> out of the hands of the Hunthausen/Bernardin ilk into the area of the
> REAL Vatican II theologians such as Ratzinger, and the like.  Enough of
> this Matthew Fox New Age Catholicism...
I'm sorry but these names don't mean much to mean.  I am not well
read when it comes to modern theology.

joel
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Legislating morality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.232344.27161@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel) writes:
>Be careful that you do not try to tell us that the gospels are more inspired 
>than Paul's epistles or the OT, or the deuterocanon, which the Protestants 
>expurgated from the Scripture.

A very good posting.  The only point I would like to add, perhaps to make the
point a little more forceful, is that the Gospels were not written by Jesus
Christ (except in the sense, which is not the sense under consideration, 
that they are divinely inspired.)  Why should we consdier Paul's writings
less authoritative and more subject to human *corruption* than the Gospel
accounts?

Peace,
John


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Calif. Prop 161
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:31:53 GMT

In article <wey2uim_NU0009Aikk@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
>Does anyone know the outcome of California Proposition 161, the
>Euthanasia bill that would legalize euthanasia in California?

   It was rejected.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:30:47 GMT

In article <9211082347.AA25439@alsvid.cs.cornell.edu> "William E. Aitken" <aitken@CS.CORNELL.EDU> writes:
>> 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.
>
>Re-read the statement to which I was responding.  Eric calimed
>[IMHO wrongly] that ``Women are forbidden to be in the sanctuary
>during liturgy, period.''   None of your citations support this claim,
>or answer my counter-claims.  Thanks for trying though.
>
I had supposed that your challenge was whether you could have female
altar servers.  That is what I was citing.             

Anything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

BB
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Sunday, 8 Nov 1992 01:08:47 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Question about divorce


Ted,

I would not presume to give advice as to what your or your father
should do, beyond saying that you both should pray about it, and he
should discuss the matter with a reliable, orthodox priest.  (It is
unfortunate that I had to put those adjectives in front of the word
"priest" but the times in which we live require them.)

Normally, married couples ought to stay together, but if the situa-
tion is severe enough and no less drastic means of dealing with it
would be successful, a legal separation is possible.  For that mat-
ter, a divorce is possible, too.  Divorce in itself is not a sin.
Divorce and remarriage is a sin.  The reason is that a divorce dis-
solves the legal bonds of a marriage, but not the marriage union that
exists in the eyes of God.  A valid, consummated, sacramental mar-
riage can be dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm  mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:03:45 -0600
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Haig Kasab writes:
>This is the letter from Rome in which Pope John Paul II says that
>discrimination against homosexuals is to be approved, at least tacitly?
>That it is just dandy to kick homosexuals (and presumably, suspected
>homosexuals) out of their jobs as priests and teachers?

This seems timely.  Locally in the Twin Cities, there is much controversy
about the Dignity and the Archbishop's upholding the Vatican
ruling that homosexual groups THAT DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHURCH'S
VIEW THAT HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES ARE SINFUL may not use church property
for their meetings, etc..   The local media doesn't mention the part
that I have capitalized.


Haig, What did Jesus prescribe for the case of people who refuse
the correction of the church (Matt 18;15-17) ?
This is quoting Jesus (for those of you who beleive that the
epistles are less worthy than the gospels :-).

joel
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG ((Gordon C. Zaft))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:01:49 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,  2:13pm, noao!75furlong@CUA.EDU wrote:
} Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallability
}
} It does at that...I wonder if, in a few hundred years, the church will decide
} that women can be called to the priesthood, or that same-sex marriage is okay
} after all.
}
} Just a thought.
}
} -Alison
}-- End of excerpt from noao!75furlong@CUA.EDU

Alison,
	As one being educated (presumably) at the Catholic University
of America, I would hope you would be aware of the differences between
something as fundamental as the nature of the priesthood and the
sacrament of marriage vs. something like the Galileo case.  The
two are not at all comparable.

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.
Avoid unnecessary branches.
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:46:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              12 Nov 1992 11:14:54 -0500 from <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:14:54 -0500 <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>Brent,
>Are there any groups out there we should hear from which contain
>homosexuals who used to be heterosexuals until they realized that
>heterosexuality to them was a sinful way of life?

I haven't heard of any J.J.  :-)  However, There are many support groups for
heterosexuals who fighting sinful sexual tendencies such as adultry, porno-
graphic addiction, lust, etc.   But your question ignores the issue of how
Homosexuals feel about people claiming that they used to be homosexuals but
changed because they came to the realization it was a sinful way of life.
To be more specific, if these people were able to change their sexual orient-
ation, does that mean that Homosexuals in general can change?  Or do the
supporters feel that those people who claimed to change are simply deluding
themselves?


>Somehow I think
>what it comes down to is you yourself making whatever sexuality or
>way of expressing your sexuality, sinful to you and yourself. Are
>ther any expressions of heterosexuality which you may deem sinful
>but not the next person? I'm still looking for an official Catholic
>"What goes for heteros" rule book:-) -J.J.


Ah! the crux of the difference.  Correct me if I misunderstand you J.J.  It
seems you are saying that we as individuals determine whether or not our
actions are sinful and that God has nothing to do with it.  It seems you are
saying that sin is relative to who is doing the action.  Don't you think God
might have some absolute rules for us?


Brent
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:51:44 GMT
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ

In article <CATHOLIC%92110611102324@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
>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?


In the canons of the "First Church of Cafeteria Catholicism"...

(no smiliey intended.)
 
BB
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:00:03 GMT

In article <921109155043.3f209a78@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>>The character is 'being called by God'.
>
>So God will never deem it time to call a woman to the priesthood? You don't
>seriously believe this, do you? Of course, you seem to remember being
>in your mother's womb and suckling her breast, I don't remember these
>events in my life, I might have been bottle fed by my father, and maybe
>that would explain my confusion on what simply must be the correct role
>model a particular sex of parent must have:-) -J.J.

I have never said that it is impossible for God to call a woman to the
priesthood.  If God called a woman to the priesthood, then she would have
this character, obviously.  But the question is not what God can do, but what
we know by faith God is doing.  If it cannot be know by faith that some sensiblething is a sign of God's grace that effects that grace, then that sensible sign
cannot be a sacrament.  Not because of any intrinsidefect on the part of that
kind of sensible thing, but because it cannot be known by faith that God has
in fact chosen to use that kind of thing as a means of communicating the 
specific kind of grace communicated in the specific kind of sacrament under
consideration.  In order to receive the grace offered, you must be able to
recognize and accept the sign.  Given that you arguments are not based upon
a knowledge by faith of what God has chosen to do (unless you are claiming
some private revelation, which of course no one else is bound to assent to :-))
but speculation upon what God could do, you cannot know by faith that God
has chosen women to be the particular kind of sign He intends in the
sacrament of Holy Orders, consequently they cannot be that sign.
In short, if women are to be called to the priesthood, it must be based upon
knowledge by faith that God is calling them to the priesthood.  Is that what you
are claiming?
From: Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: After Vatican II (was: Nature of the list)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:03:08 GMT
Organization: ANU
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.12
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:02:19 GMT

My dear fellows,
let's be plain and simple - there always must be a change, because the
Church has to keep up with the progress. I've seen a nice German movie
(Das Gewitter im Mai) "Thunderstorm in May", where a priest in a small
village in the Bavarian Alps sometime in the first quarter of the century
was very strongly opposing the installation of electricity for the
village. Of course it sounds ridiculous now to condemn electricity as "a
work of evil powers", but maybe it didn't sound like that at that time... 
I suppose if some of us are a bit conservative, than it concerns more the
liturgy and the "inner life" of the Church. Jesus Himself prayed (in John
17,14-19) for the same purpose - I believe what it means for me is to
"stay in the world"=to be up to date with the progress, and whatever we
can use for a good purpose, but never change into the world's image. If
we are genuine in our Christianity, we must be different, and we have to
keep our traditions... sometimes I really think many churches are just
changing their liturgy into something like TV talk shows, and it's not
right, even if it's in order to make few more people interested to come...
Yours in Christ,
Lubosh
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:56:19 GMT



    I may end up repeating myself from an earlier post, so please pardon
me, but at the time it did not seem to get any response, and it seems
relevant again here.  (Have you hit the 'n' key yet?  :-) )

    If someone out there can set me straight, I would appreciate it,
but from the best I've been able to determine, the earth does not go
around the sun.  Instead, according to special relativity, it all
depends on the frame of reference involved.  From the sun's frame
of reference, we have nine (or is it ten?) planets revolving in
elliptical orbits beautifully described by Kepler's Laws.  But those
laws are only mathematical formulations, not physical events.  They
could, with considerable difficulty I suppose, be reformulated to suit
an earth frame of reference.  If you use the earth as an inertial
frame of reference (to be fair, it isn't because of rotation, but it
does pretty well even so), the sun moves around the earth.  (And, just
to round this out, general relativity extends special relativity to
noninertial frames, making it mathematically more general.  It does
not, however, undermine the physical principle of relativity of motion.)

    So, the whole point of this is, if you wish to say the Church was
wrong with regard to Galileo, it looks as though you'll have to say
in terms of treatment, attitude, or the like, because the substance of
Galileo's doctrine is just as wrong as the geocentric universe.


John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
From: milton@PROBITAS.CS.UTAS.EDU.AU ((Simon Milton))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Love & Christianity
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:58:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
              Ewanco" at Nov 5, 92 10:19 pm

Simon here again!,

J.J.,

  >Well   Simon   should  be  relieved  that  we  don't  really  have  any
  fundamentalists here, else they would have began a search for him to put
  him to death.  Of course, if we don't hear from Simon again, well, let's
  not think about that:-)

I'm still here;-)

  >Eric, isn't it possible that homosexuality is another  of  God's  plans
  for population control?

Along with a celibate clergy....

  >What  do  you  think is God's purpose for female orgasm?  Should making
  love cease once the male orgasms?  Is it perhaps a sin if  both  married
  partners  don't  orgasm  at once?  Or does anything go between a married
  couple? Maybe someone could direct me towards the Church's "fundamental"
  position on these.

I can't wait to hear:-)

Cheers, Simon