HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: dialectic and orthodoxy
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:28:19 GMT

dEAr JJ,
   Is the male priesthood helpful for my salvation?
I honestly don't know. Is the doctrine of the 
Trinity? I understand that you are truly offended
in your sense of justice. I am sorry to hear that.
If you are close to leaving, I am even more sorry.
When I was an adolescent, a lot of things about the
Catholic faith made little or no sense to me.
Just to mention a few: I frankly didn't see the
point of the Trinity. The idea of a bodily re-
surrection was difficult for me to swallow. The
idea of eating the Body of Christ seemed bizarre.
It frankly smacked of primitive superstition. 
I could not conceive how a man (or God) dying on
a cross two thousand years ago could affect me.
That, too, sounded like magical thinking. Love of
the Church, and a very strong sense that it was
what it claimed to be, kept me from losing my faith.
As you know, I am a scientist. So I had many 
intellectual difficulties on that score. However,
I desperately wanted not to lose my faith. I
guess my attitude was like Peter's "To whom
shall we go?" With time, thank God, little by
little certain things began to fit together. A
doctrine that looked very bizarre to me, and quite
extraneous, I suddenly understood to be related
to other things, and even to be central. Sometimes
I found out that the actual teaching of the Church
was somewhat different from what I imagined, and
made more sense. Over time so much of the jigsaw
fit together that my doubts and difficulties 
evaporated. Perhaps your experience has been 
different. Perhaps things increasingly don't make
sense to you about Catholic tradition. I don't
know. My attitude, shaped by my experience, is
that when I find something strange in Scripture or 
doctrine I expect that there is some subtle truth
involved. 
    I am in a field with no applications (particle
physics). We are trying to find the fundamental laws
of nature. The things we study now, neutrino masses,
superstrings, etc. are *useless*. But I think the
truth about nature even if useless in practical terms
is worth pursuing. It is a way of knowing God better,
by knowing His ideas. (Whether the taxpayers would
still support this stuff if they knew what was all about
I don't know!) I think understanding the nature of
sexuality, what it means in the divine plan, what the
proper relationship between the sexes is, what malenes
and femaleness are all about, is far more useful and
more important for the happiness of human society.
I suspect God's revelation has something non-trivial
to say about all of this. Yes, equality is part of
what it has to say. If that were all it had to say 
I would be very disappointed. I delight in the difference
between the sexes. If someone invented a drug that made
all women grow facial hair, become as strong as men, 
allowed men to bear children, and obliterated the difference
between the sexes altogether, I would not applaud. 
The sexual difference is a beautiful thing to me. Just
some raNDOM Personal reflections. Steve.
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:19:10 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              11 Nov 1992 18:15:10 CST from <kasab@LUTHER.CHE.WISC.EDU>

> Haig said:

>>This [Eric's attitude on the state of homosexuality]
>>is based on personal experience and contact with homosexuals.
>>Believe it or not, not all homosexuals believe that homosexuality is
>>natural and to be encouraged.  Some homosexuals actually agree with me
>>here.  Some homosexuals have given these matters a great deal of thought
>>and do not agree with the more liberal, activist homosexuals.
>
>Oh, I believe that you know homosexuals who feel very guilty about what they
>are.  I would not have expected much less, really.  I agree that some
>homosexuals, because of societal pressures, feel bad about themselves for
>something they have no control over.  IMHO, the world would be a happier
>place if everyone else could accept homosexuals for who they are, and not
>throw on a lot of emotional baggage.

I've been curious about something since this debate started.  What do our Gay
friends and their supporters think about the the many people who claim to be
ex-homosexuals?  I know there is an organization out of Texas formed for the
purpose of supporting ex-homosexuals and Eric mentioned another group.  I
believe it was called "Courage".  Also I remember seeing on TV a few years
back that the singer Little Richard and claimed he used to be a "Flaming
Homosexual", but through the Grace of God had cast off that sin.  Then there
was the piece on the TV show 20/20 that dealt with a psychiatrist who claimed
to have cured many homosexual men. They interviewed a couple of them who said
they were happier now.
      Do our Gay friends on this list think these people are for real?  Do you
think maybe they are just deluding themselves?  I don't mean to be offensive
(although I guess I never let that stop me before!), but I haven't really
seen this issue addressed by the Gay supporters, and it does appear to be a
significant issue.

>  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu

Brent Winiger
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:50:25 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2

John Covert writes:

>We know (if we believe the Bible to be truth) that it is Our Lord's will
>that we should all be one, even as he is one with the Father.  This means
>that either the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches have to accept
>the ordination of women, or the Anglican Communion has to abandon it.

John, John, John... being in unity with other Christian brethren does not mean
we all have to use the same bells, books, and candles, or even see eye-to-eye on
everything.

People who are so concerned with form as opposed to content invariably miss the
gospel message.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Monday, 9 Nov 1992 09:54:45 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: CORRECTION OF SERIOUS TYPO re PROLIFE NEWS

When I gave the Steve Frezza's address for requesting ProLife News
I misread my written note.  The correct address is
frezza@ee.pitt.edu

As I've said before, I'd fire me as my typist if I didn't work so cheap.
Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm  mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:08:18 GMT

In article <921106110555.28e2bb3a@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>Steve,
>If the data doesn't fit the theory, then the theory must be modified to
>account for the new data or the data must be reevaluated to see if the
>proper controls were in place when the data was collected. In a lot of
>cases, it is the theory that must be expanded on(Newton to Einstein comes
>to mind). Be that as it may, in today's society, there is ample evidence
>that women are fully capable of teaching and leading, I guess I'd have
>to ask for this data of your's which links the decline of the protestant
>Churches to their ordination of women, to be reevaluated:-) -J.J.
>(you mean ther are no evangelical churches with women ministers?)


   Being a priest is not just a question of going through motions and
fulfilling functions, or one could be a priest only temporarily.  It
is a sacrament of _character_ (in the philosophical, not the election
year, sense. ;-) ) I don't know of anyone who seriously doubts women
are physically capable of performing the functions priests perform.
But being a priest is not just performing certain motions.


John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu


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: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:07:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.152451.29288@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
> ...
>egregarious abuse of both the rite of the eucharist and the rubrics
>of the Catholic Church is, in my estimation a grave matter.  That is 
>why I seperate the Roman Catholics from the American Catholic churches.

This ignores the fact that girl altar servers are also common in Europe.

>won't know that they should provide the responses.  But, you see, that 
>means that the person in charge of the acolytes has to actually
>understand what is required of him.  And actually has to understand what
                                ^^^
Unfortnately, it is not allowed to be a 'him' in our diocese, due to the
obvious indiscressions in the news.  Altar server trainer must be female
pastoral staff member in our diocese.  Fact of life.  I say unfortunate
not because females are trainers, but because of the situation that led
to this.

>
>BB

Bob "I'll take the bells, you take the book" von Buelow


--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:16:17 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 12-Nov-1992 0814" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      RE: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2

Tom Scharle <scharle@LUKASIEWICZ.CC.ND.EDU> wrote:

>While Catholics surely agree to the weight of such a document, it
>seems clear that there was no citation of an ex cathedra pronouncement
>nor of a Council, so I assume that none exists on the subject of female
>ordination.

But, of course, we have several thousand years of tradition around God's
priesthood in both the Old Covenant and New Covenant Church, which is at
least as weighty as a conciliar proclamation.

This is why the unilateral decision of various parts of the Anglican Communion
to ordain women in violation of tradition and without obtaining worldwide
agreement (at least in principle) from the Roman Catholics and Orthodox
is so troubling.

My primary objection to the ordination of women has always been that it is
damaging to prospects for unity in the Church.  Not only is it a major setback
in the progress made over the last 26 years toward Anglican-Roman Catholic
unity, it appears that it will cause a major schism within the Church of
England itself.

We can hope that cooler heads will prevail, and that England will establish
an organization similar to the Episcopal Synod of America and allow it to
operate as a Church within the Church, with non-geographic dioceses serving
parishes which would otherwise leave the unity of the church.

We can also hope that the women who feel called to the priesthood in England
will be edifying, and will not be radicals such as Carter Heywood here in
Cambridge, whose views on human sexuality are an abomination.

I am, as a member of ESA, committed to take no action that would imply
acceptance of a change in the priesthood of the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church until the WHOLE Church agrees to the change.

We know (if we believe the Bible to be truth) that it is Our Lord's will
that we should all be one, even as he is one with the Father.  This means
that either the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches have to accept
the ordination of women, or the Anglican Communion has to abandon it.

/john
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 14:47:40 GMT

In article <Pine.3.03.9211041116.H29506-b100000@dante> WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU> writes:
>>     Please tell us who you believe Jesus was.
>
>This is what I do believe: Jesus was a thinker, a critic of the Judeaism
>of his contemporaries, and one of many people of his day with followers
>(disciples) who thought he was the messiah.

What is your source for these beliefs about Jesus, i.e. how have you come
to learn and believe them?

>Whether or not he really was more holy than common folk is not for me to say.

Given this distinction from what you say above, would you say that this claim
does not come from the same source of learning as the claims you say you believe
above?

>> According to Scripture, He
>> claimed to be God, and convinced many of his contemporaries that he
>> indeed was.
>
>Lots of people did the same thing.

For instance?

>> His claim was obviously either true or false and is important enough that it
>> should be given very serious consideration by everyone.
>
>Believe me, I have been giving it serious consideration.  Why do you feel
>it is so important?  Is it really that fascinating that someone calls
>himself God and convinces people that he is?

You are confusing two different things here:
1) "Jesus claimed he was God";
2) "Jesus was God".
The first is about what Jesus claimed.  You seem to admit that 1) is true.
2) is what Jesus claimed, or equivalent to it.  But it is significantly different for 1).  2) Is a claim that Jesus was God; it is not a claim about what Jesus
claimed.  Your point is directed to 1), which may well be not fascinating at all.  But the statement you were responding to is about 2), and certainly fascinating that a human person is a divine person.

>Did not Charles Manson do something similar?  How about Pat Robertson,
>Orrell Roberts, et cetera?
I don't know.  But there is a difference between claiming to be God and being
God.

Peace,
John


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: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:34:50 GMT

In article <921110132557.28e45c68@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>John sees an opening, he shoots, argh..... right though the heart:-)

I apologize if you were in any way hurt by what I said.  As you well
know you often use humor and sarcasm in your postings.  The difficulty
becomes then, despite the liberal use of smiley faces (Ha Ha), that it
is not always easy to tell when someone who usually relies more on
humor and sarcasm than argument, is being serious.  But again I apologize
if you were hurt.

>
>OK, John, I admit it, I'm no Rhodes Scholar, but I was not trying to
>imply that the Church intentionally keeps women from the priesthood
>even though they "know" they are being called by God.
>The point was 'how will we know if we don't give them a chance?'

Here then seems to be the difference:
1) You think the Church has to find out;
2) The Church claims already to know. 

>I admit it's just my own sense of justice which is offended by the
>Churches proscription, and in that sense, my own salvation as I
>get closer to leaving rather than staying dishonestly and causing
>trouble. Maybe I'm just a shallow person, I haven't really explored
>all the ramifications to the Church which would result if women were
>ordained, I just see it as a 'good'. - J.J.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't think anyone should ever leave
the Church.  I think everyone, myself included more than you could imagine, should seek union with the Church in thought word and deed, and pray for understanding of what they don't understand, or have problems with.  So I hope you would
never leave; and I hope that everyone who has left will return.
Peace,
John

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:09:30 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

There are a bunch of messages BEFORE  this one I have to still reply to,
but I couldn't wait on this one.

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992, Eric James Ewanco wrote:

> I believe that homosexuals can only find peace by rejecting the
> homosexual lifestyle (i.e. homosexual sex) and living either celibately
> or in a marital relationship with a member of the opposite sex, if that
> is possible.  (For some, it is; others are revolted by the thought.)

Eric: I did not reach peace UNTIL I embraced my own homosexuality as a
legitimate part of my life.  Sure, I'm still a virgin and all, but my main
desire in life is to find "Mr. Right," settle down, and live a life with him.

Sounds pretty normal to me.  No despair, unpeacefulness, etc.

Happyfag!  Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 5 Nov 1992 03:28:55 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Proper scope of Science (WAS Bellarmine on Galileo5

You write, "Stephen,  As a fellow scientist, you surely should agree,
that we the Church should try some experiments like ordaining a few
select women or blessing a few same sex unions to observe if it
causes the Churches downfall or leads to an even greater participa-
tion in our faith. Or perhaps you are just a theoretician who has no
use for experimentation:-) -J.J."

Should we also take a consecrated host and an unconsecrated host to a
laboratory and analyze them to determine whether the consecrated host
really has been changed into the body and blood of Christ?

Analyzing a consecrated host in a laboratory would accomplish nothing
except sacrilege.  Transubstantiation means that the substance is
changed without a corresponding change in the accidents, and the
accidents include anything that can be detected by the senses, in-
cluded the senses augmented by scientific apparatus.

The objection to ordaining women is not that it would cause the
Church's downfall, it is that women cannot be ordained.   Baptism is
a prerequisite for receiving any of the other sacraments.  I am a
baptized man.  If a bishop were to ordain me I would become a priest.
If the bishop were to ordain an unbaptized man, nothing would happen.
He would not be a priest, but there is no way we could determine this
fact if we did not know that he had never been baptized.  We could
not have him and a known validly ordained priest celebrate Mass and
analyze the hosts to see if one had been transubstantiated and the
other had not.   In the same way, if a bishop were to ordain a woman
(baptized or unbaptized, nothing would happen.  She would not be a
priest, but there is no way we could prove this by scientific experi-
mentation.  It is a matter of theology, and the magisterium is the
authority God has given us for the resolution of theological contro-
versies.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm  mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:07:35 -0600
From:         "(Joel Neisen)" <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Love & Christianity

Simon,
> This  newsgroup  seems  to  have an overly fundamentalist flavour and
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(from Xwebster)
fun.da.men.tal.ism or fun.da.men.tal.is.tic \-*l-.iz-*m\ \-*l-*st\
   \-.ment-*l-'is-tik\ n often cap  1a: a movement in 20th century
   Protestantism emphasizing as fundamental the literal inerrancy of the
   Scriptures, the second coming of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, physical
   resurrection, and substitutionary atonement 1b: the beliefs of this
   movement 1c: adherence to such beliefs 2: a movement or attitude similar to
   Protestant fundamentalism - fun.da.men.tal.ist n

I think in terms of homosexuality, the tendency is NOT to argue
against it in terms of fundamentalism, but rather along the lines
of Tradition, and the binding authority that the church leaders
has on its members.

joel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:45:55 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 09-Nov-1992 2346" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Time for some mild humour...

... I just noticed that the Oxfam Fast Day this year coincides with
the observance for Elizabeth of Hungary...

ba-doom-doom-doom.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: pvisel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick E Visel)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:51:50 GMT

In article <92318.112607JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> Jeff Brooks <JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:
>In article <centaur.721633129@cc.gatech.edu>, centaur@terminus.gatech.edu
>(Anthony G. Francis) says:
>>                reinterpretation of Genesis is a much wider-reaching
>>                reinterpretation than required to allow women priests,
>
>But St. Augustine was already suggesting in the fourth century that
>Genesis 1 was true but not necessarily literally true, and his "earlier
>forms contain later forms as unexpressed possibilities" was not
>considered wildly heretical in his time.  Maybe the reinterpretation
>of Genesis is not as new as you supposed?  The Church has only stated
>that the Creation took place and was of God, and that a first man and
>women were created directly -- somehow -- and fell.  The general scope
>of evolution is not affected.
>
>   Jeff
>


The reinterpretation of Genisis was part of the whole theo;ogical/spiritual
atmosphere of the early church and the late second temple Judaism.  The 
toics had developed a sophisticated apparatus for metaphorical interpretation
of "myth" and used it freely.  This influenced early Christianity and
especially Gnosticism.  My point here is not that this meant that any
particular part of Genesis was considered untrue but that the possiblility
was aaddressed more in the early church than at any other time until the
present.
                             Patrick Visel