HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:44:48 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: consecration of Russia

On Jan 6,  7:40am, CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET wrote:
} Subject: Re: consecration of Russia
}   According to Sr. Lucia of Fatima, God will allow the grace for the
} consecration to be made when enough people on the earth are living the
} message of Fatima. (Medjugorje's message is nearly the same, an
} encouragement) As Sr. Lucia says, Russia will be a tool of the
} chastisement and if we begin to live the message of Fatima, we can
} help to bring about a lessening of this chastisment.
}   The consecration *will* be made, but "it will be late". In fact, it
} is said that Sr. Lucia is to live to see the beginning of the chastisement.
} Which is interesting because it is also said that as soon as the
} consecration is made she will pass to her eternal reward. If this part
} is valid, then the chastisments will begin before this nearly 86 year
} old woman dies.

        [... deletions...]
}   This apostalate is headed by Fr. Nicholas Gruner. He worked to bring
} the bishops of the world together for the 75th anniversary of the apparition
} at Fatima on October 13, 1992. (the anniversary of the Miracle of the
} Sun) Speaking with a friend the other day, I learned that while Fr. Gruner
} was in Fatima in October, on his way to the altar it was very crowded, and
} he was attacked by several men and who slammed him into the wall, and
} roughed him up enough that it was necessary he go to the hospital. There
} were other bizarre events like this that occurred that make it clear that
} Satan truly does not wish this consecration to be made.
}-- End of excerpt from CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET

        Quoted from _Our_Sunday_Visitor_ 12/20/92, Fr. Sheedy's 'Ask Me
A Question" column:

        "The magazine Fatima Crusader is published by Father Nicholas
Gruner without Church approval.  Bishops of dioceses where Father Gruner
set up offices have asked Catholics not to support the effort.
        On Oct. 7, 1992, the Holy See took the unusual step of publishing
in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily newspaper, a declaration that
denounced a meeting Father Gruner had organized at Fatima.
        It stated that Father Gruner 'was stripped of the faculty to
perform ministerial acts in the Diocese of Leiria-Fatima.'
        Earlier, the superior of the convent where Sister Lucy, the
Fatima visionary, resides, informed Father Gruner he no longer had
permission to say Mass there.
        Sister Lucy wrote in 1984 that the consecration of Russia was
done properly by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984.  Father Gruner
denies this."

        So according to this the consecration was done, and Fr.
Gruner is probably not a good source of information.

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.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu, tfm+catholic@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:08:29 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 12-Jan-1993 1601" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Saints

>(Hope this is general enough in interest to merit a post) I've heard of
>the Eastern Orthodox Churches, of course, and I'm pretty sure I've heard
>the phrase "Oriental Orthodox Churches" before as well, but never in the
>same sentence, so I'd always presumed they were the same (they certainly
>seem to mean the same thing). What's the difference? Thanks.

Sort of a general term for The Assyrian Church, which has not been in
communion with other Eastern churches since the Council of Ephesus in
431 A.D., and the Armenian Apostolic, the Armenian Catholicosate of
Cilicia, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the
Syrian Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in India,
and the Jacobite Orthodox Church in India, known as "non-Chalcedonian"
churches, which are in communion with each other but not with anyone
else since the council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Some of these churches have Greek Orthodox and/or Roman Catholic (Uniate)
counterparts.

Pope Shenouda of the Coptic Orthodox Church has been working with the
Ecumenical Patriarch of the East to end Christianity's longest major
schism.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:21:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Devotion to Mary

Rae's response on DeMontfort's books seems to me to be more on the mark
than the earlier postings that warned against the use of De Montfort's
works for beginners.  As Rae says, and similar to the works of spritual
writers of earlier centuries, twentieth century readers must sort
through the flowery, devotional style that characterizes DeMontfort to find
the nuggets beneath.

Fred Chavez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:38:46 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> writes:
>(1) I have heard this claim that Scripture only
>condemns homosexual rape, cultic homosexuality, etc.
>Could you (or anyone else out there) tell us what
>the evidence is that Paul's condemnations only referred
>to that? When he condemns Lesbianism is he referring
>to cultic Lesbian acts only? There is nothing in the
>context that suggests it to me. He talks about these
>if I recall correctly in the context of lust rather
>than idolatry.

Reading that Romans 1 passage referred to earlier appears to me to be
God using homosexuality as a punishment for idolaters who are
naturally heterosexual. But I'm no scripture scholar.

> (2) Even if Scripture is ambiguous,
>why is not the constant teaching of the Church enough?

Traditional errors are still errors:-)

>    Oops. A third question. Is it not possible that
>the revulsion you feel is a consequence of the law of God
>which Paul says is written on our hearts. Why should we
>not trust this moral revulsion as I am sure we all
>trust our moral revulsion at incest, fornication,
>adultery, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.?

For a homosexual, heterosexual acts are revolting, yet they may
still find revulsion in the five others you listed.
Leaving the toilet seat up may be a moral dilemma to some:-)
What is natural and what is unnatural is the question, it appears
to me that homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait in a
certain percentage of the population and always has been.

>Steve..

Thanks for not disclaimering this post for only totally serious
responses:-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:06:48 GMT

zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha) writes:

>[replying to Jim McIntosh]
>The other question is whether love (other than eros) should lead anyone to
>commit sin.  If two men "love" (phileo or agape) each other, the last thing
>I think they would want to do is "love" (eros) each other because they would
>each be sinning against themselves, the other, and against God.

Fascinating.  So, apparently, what you're saying is that those men who
do "eros" each other cannot feel "phileo" or "agape" for each other.  I 
am sorry, but I think that you're making some false conclusions here.
How can you know what is in the heart of another man?  I don't presume to
judge my gay neighbors in this way because I cannot know what is within
their hearts.  That is between them and God.

>Also to
>repeat something brought up before, the "Gay" community is better defined
>by anonymous sex with as many partners as possible.

How many gay people do you know?  I happen to know many gay men and women 
and almost none of them are the type to go out and have "anonymous sex with
as many partners as possible."  (In fact, I know a lot more heterosexuals
who are going out and picking up sexual partners and doing it.)  

>I don't think those
>who are comitted and monagamous are represented in the parades in SF and NY.
>But every other deviation is. 

I have some friends who have marched in such parades.  The fact of the matter
is that there are committed, monogamous, "normal" looking people marching:
however, the news media is much more likely to videotape the leathermen and
the drag queens.


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: consecration of Russia
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:04:17 GMT

      I am no Fatima expert, but there are a few very
interesting coincidences relating to Our Lady and the
recent events in Russia. 
      The day when the U.S.S.R. formally ceased to exist
as a State was December 8, 1991. !!! I noticed this myself
because the New York Times back then had a box on the
front page containing the text of the declaration by which
the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and giving the date of the
pronouncement. 
      The day when the red star and other Communist symbols
were removed from the Kremlin: Dec. 25, 1991. 
      Another coincidence: The wonderful organization,
Aid to the Church in Need, bought a radio transmitter to
proclaim the gospel (in cooperation with the Orthodox)
in the Soviet Union. It was confiscated by the Soviet
authorities and stored in the Parliament building. On that
fateful night when Yeltsin stood on a tank to address the
Russian people, he needed a radio transmitter to call 
upon the people of Moscow to help him. He asked a member
of Parliament where one could be found and was told about
the Aid to the Church in Need transmitter. That was the one
he used! Aid to the Church in Need is a Catholic organization
much devoted to the Fatima message. 
      As for whether a consecration has been made: isn't
this getting a little esoteric?! Look!!!: a Polish Pope
returns to his Communist homeland and sparks off the
Solidarity movement (not just a labor movement, but a 
Catholic movement as well). That movement ultimately
brings down Communism in Poland and, many believe, set in
motion the events which ended Communism in Russia too. 
That Polish Pope who credits Our Lady of Fatima for saving
his life when he was shot on -- of all days-- May 13 !
That Polish Pope whose devotion to Our Lady is manifested
in his coat of arms, and who thanked the Madonna when 
he was elected.
     The fall of Communism in the Soviet Empire has been 
accompanied by a huge resurgence of faith both Catholic 
and Orthodox. 
     Consecration or no consecration, Mary has something
to do with these truly miraculous events. Let us give
thanks to God and His holy mother, and stop this
esoteric squabbling!!  Steve.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: mhunt@world.std.com (Michael J Hunt)
Subject: Re: EWTN
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:40:53 GMT

Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:


>If the only reason you avoid shooting your mate is because you are afraid of
>getting caught, and you'd do it in a minute if you could get away with it,
>then the fact you are avoiding the act of murder isn't doing much for your
>marriage.  You should avoid killing your spouse because you love him or her.

>Similarly, we should do good because we love God and want to do what is
>pleasing to God.  If we are only doing good and avoiding sin because we fear
>some punishment, it can hardly be beneficial to our relationship with God.

It seems to me that there is some validity in the old distinctions here. I
can perform a virtuous act (or refrain from an evil act) because 1) I love
God or 2) because I fear the consequences of some punishment. Better, of
course, and more of a virture to be motivated by the first, but the
second, less exalted motive will suffice. Bottom line is that I do the
virtuous act (or refrain from the opposite). 

The purpose of the spiritual life is to grown more deeply in my
relationship with God and communion with his people so that the first
motive, love of God, will more and more direct my actions. But even then,
at times, the fear of consequences may awaken my conscience and keep me on
the road and the journey.

One of the motives alone may not be enough. I see some strong connections
between this age old church wisdom and our present dilemmas in society
where we seem to be at a loss about how to motivate ourselves and others
to work for the common good.
-- 
          ________________________________________________________

Michael J. Hunt                                MHunt@world.std.com
Catholic Center at Tufts                       < internet > 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:58:53 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%93011117223767@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> lhh@LCUXLP.ATT.COM writes:
>
>        Is this true ? I thought by "nature" we are without sin.
>        The "original sin" that we inherit is actual the loss
>        of a special gift given from God to Adam and Eve. A gift that God
>        had intended to be inherited by all people.
>        Adam and Eve (or the "first people") lost our inheritance.
>        Due to the loss of this grace, we tend to sin.
>        Am I just picking nits ?
>        It seems important to me because then God does not
>        create us in a state of sinfulness - he creates us naturally good.
>
>                Len Horn

Len, I think you understand the doctrine of the fall and of original sin,
and of our sinful nature correctly.  God's intention (and act) creates us
good, but by giving into temptation we lose that.  God also intended that
Israel become a nation of priests to the world, but they sinned so that
one tribe had to be priests to the nation.  God wanted to redeem Israel,
butthey rejected their Messiah.  Man's history is one of frustrating God's
will that we be healed from sin.

But to stretch the point, the way C.S. Lewis put it is that the first man
and woman were given a choice by god and  decided to disobey.  That caused
the fall, and we inherited that.  I myself tend to believe Genesis, if not
literally, then as poetry describing actual events.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
zerucha@fim001.ets.ford.com - work address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 46 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:19:00 PST
From:         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:02:44 GMT Thomas E Zerucha said:
>But let me turn it around - If I get a different "inspiration" from scripture
>than you do, then who arbitrates the correct interpretation.

Why is one "correct" and the other "in error"?  Francis of Assisi heard
Jesus's advice for the Rich Young Man and took it to heart and went and sold
all he had and gave the money to the poor. For him not to do this would have
been unthinkable -- it would have come between him and God and therefore
would have been a sin.  For the vast majority of us, we can hear that same
passage feel no guilt about our wealth and riches. This does not mean we are
sinners, because God is acting differently in our hearts when we hear this
passage.

You would lose a lot if, when reading the Scriptures, you ran frequently to
an approved commentary to find out what it is suppose to mean instead of
spending time in prayer and trying to decypher what God is saying to you at
that moment in time.  I am constantly amazed at the way a piece of Scripture
which I've heard countless times before will suddenly have a fresh and
exciting new meaning to me. God is constantly speaking to us... each of
individually... pointing us in the direction we are to go.

>Let me give you a sever example: Person A is a homosexual, and interprets
>liberally and finds that he is doing nothing contrary to scripture.  Person
>B reads the severe condemnation and penalties against the practice and takes
>the idea of capital punishment literally.  Are they both free to pursue
>their differing views?

Sure, if they are being faithful to the message they receive. First of all,
Judge Not! It is not my place to judge anyone's actions but my own. I have
more than enough sins to worry about without having to decide everyone elses'
for them also.

I do not criticize the Church for saying *in general* some things are wrong.
To kill another human being is certainly something that is usually wrong. At
the same time, I would never presume to judge someone who killed another in
self-defense, or in a time of war. Similarly the Church should say that a
marriage between two people is to be prefered. But I would not presume to
judge someone who has been created by God to act in love in another way.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:58:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Confiteor

>    The church I attend here no longer says the Confiteor.  Is this the
>general practice these days?  Why has it been dropped?  (I don't know
>how long it's been this way, but it finally dawned on me one day that
>we weren't saying it.)

asked:

>John Rickert
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu

I take it you mean the form of the old "confiteor," which itself has not been
used since the old days of the Latin Mass.  I don't know if they use the
old form of the "confiteor" when they celebrate the Latin Mass these days, but
the more abbreviated form that survived in the vernacular is still one of the
three or four optional forms that can be used today.  I've noticed that thhis
form seems to be the one least frequently used; sounds as though you have been
through a prolonged "dry spell" in not having heard it.  The translation of
the old canon (option number 1) is similarly used most infrequently in my
experience, except for my pastor who does give it equal billing.

I'm not sure how many options for the penetential rite are approved for use
at Mass, but there are about ten or so in the night prayer of the Liturgy of
Hours.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone.
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:25:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Lies about the Consecration

Elizabeth writes:

>The article Fred sent has a few unconvincing
>comments (ie 'the Pope was upset about letters being sent to have
>the consecration done properly'...only it didn't say *why* he was
>upset....perhaps he was upset because he wanted to do it and could
>not get it accomplished?) Then some quotes that exactly opposite
>other things I've read. (not just Fr. Gruner)

Well, I think the implication was pretty clear.  Certainly the Pope is an a
position to correct any misimpression, knowing how much consternation is out
there.  He strikes me as too strong an individual to be held hostage by his
bishops; the reverse is more commonly alleged.

>For myself, it is difficult to imagine that the world is now pleasing
>God when we seem to be falling farther and farther away from God.

This is really the whole point, isn't it?  The Virgin will always be upset by
those who do not accept her Son's will.  It seems to me that the message to
Fr. Gobbi, posted elsewhere this morning, could be interpreted the same way--
that the "request" has not been accepted by many.  In the gospels Jesus
proclaims "this age is a wicked age," and, indeed, the same can be said of
EVERY age.  The struggles will go on, ebb and subside, until it's all
over--and no one, but NO ONE (but the Father), knows when it will all end.


>I pray that we may find the truth. If we are led to believe it
>has been done satisfactorily when it has not, God help us all...

It's hard to believe you would place the ultimate end of us ALL in this one
act.  "Blessed is the womb who bore you and the breasts that nursed you"
said an onlooker to Jesus. "Rather, blessed is the person who hears the
word of God and keeps it" he replied.  Point is, IMHO, the consecration of
Russia to the IHM, and the metaphor Russia represents here--all that is
evil, in the world, in nations, in groups, in individuals, in me--is
intended to draw us back to Christ. When we go to her, the first words we hear
are the last time she is quoted in scripture, at Cana, "Do as He tells you."

Amen! to your prayers.
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:28:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lies about the Consecration

From Elizabeth:
>Well, I don't feel it's appropriate for me "argue", because in my own
>mind this implies that I have a viewpoint that I'm trying to support
>and perhaps convince others to share this viewpoint.

OK, never mind the semantics.  Coffee yes, danish, no.  Gotta get rid of
this bowling ball :-).

>" want to be careful not to get caught in a trap where you decide that this
>is the only way to Christ and there is no other". ?  Excuse my blank look,
>I don't understand how the consecration is a way to Christ. Let alone the
>only way. To me (irrelevant of now "done" or "not done" ) it matters
>because it involves much suffering and loss for mankind. I trust that
>God will care for me and my family, but compassion for millions of others
>leads me to pray that the consecration is done.

Hmmm. My assumption was that the "suffering and loss for mankind" had more
to do with losing souls than anything else.  In my mind the worst kind of
such loss is being separated from Christ forever--the definition of Hell.
So, yes, the point of the consecration is bringing Russia--and
metaphorically, transformation of the whole world--to Christ.

>>And to the RCIA candidate:  Please don't let our free-for-all debate confuse

>Oh! I thought you were speaking to this RCIA candidate! O:) I TRULY hope this
>is not a free-for-all debate. My posts are meant as friendly discussions over
>coffee (and perhaps a nice little Danish). Someone let me know if this is
>not how you are speaking.

See above.  My concern was for the other RCIA candidate whose posting
indicated he found all of this confusing.  Are you currently a candidate, a
neophyte, or immediate past neophyte (if there is such a thing)?
It does not surprise me that these matters are not brought up in RCIA.  The
simple fact is, none of these things are part of the body of dogma that we
are required to believe to be good Catholic Christians.  The Church only goes
so far as to judge them worthy of belief, and no farther.  The rest falls
into the realms of private revelation and personal devotion.  During the two
years I assisted in our RCIA group, our leader's approach was to introduce
the rosary and other devotions as part of prayer life development.  Although
I know she has strong positive feelings about many of the current phenomena,
she strictly did not discuss any of them during the official RCIA sessions,
very correctly, I believe.

His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:59:56 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: submission to teaching, conscience, ... sigh.

>>Steve Barr.
>Martin Barry.

Yes, well, I was wondering if these two fellows were related somehow, with
Steve's family having dropped the "y" upon coming to the States? :-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic