HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: contributions
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:47:52 GMT
Organization: CompuData Inc.

ALHY@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (J Scott Berg) writes:

>I always expected that if I write a check and put it in the collection
>basket, somebody just stamps that back with an endorsement and
>deposits it.  I would just assume that the parish council, my pastor,
>and anyone else had no idea how much I gave.  I don't want the way
>they treat me to be based upon how much I donate.  I want to donate
>out of love of God and concern for the Church and others, not based
>upon how I am treated or what I expect to get back from the Church.

>I have no idea if my parish does this sort of stuff.  If they do, I
>will stop using checks as well as registering my objections...

Scott, it is all very wonderful that you don't wish human beings between you 
and your money but surely you realize that a church records its revenues. 
These do not get made anonymously. Just to protect themselves these records 
are by name and date & type of contribution. The IRS may well ask a church for 
a contribution verification if the donor claims cash was given and he has no 
checks cashed by the church to validate his donations.

What your reasons are for giving is another matter. That is between you and 
God and certainly no one writes that down. 

Now in an ideal world we would all donate with equal fervor and there would be 
no shortage of charitable respources. Sadly such is not the case and every 
organization has to make decisions based upon who is most deserving etc. I 
wonder how you would feel if a situation were to arise where you really needed 
help and no one came forth to offer it. Your pastor tells you that he simply 
can't help every Tom, Dick and Harry as his resources are limited. You would 
then not say, but father I gave this church lots of money over the years and 
now I need help. You would expect God to intercede for you and tell the world 
that you are deserving of help? Humans make those decisions.  


Fred



-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     'mans feet have grown/so big 
26 Warren St.   home: fred@icdi10.compu.com  that he/forgets his littleness'
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		Don Marquis 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:23:38 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Jan 16

                    Saturday, January 16, 1993

Hebrews 4: 12-16            Psalm 19            Mark 2:13-17

               "CRUCIFIED OUT OF WEAKNESS"(II Cor 13:4)

"We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
 weakness." --Hebrews 4:15

Jesus understands human weakness.  Although He never sinned, He knew what it
was to feel weak in the face of temptations.  "It is true he was crucified out
of weakness" (II Cor 13:4).  Although He understands our weakness, we don't
understand His weakness because none of us has ever been crucified for our
weakness.

Because Jesus sympathizes with our weakness,
  1)  He associates with sinners (Mk 2:16).
  2)  He wants to forgive us more than we want to be forgiven.
  3)  He wants us to forgive others.
  4)  He loves sinners and therefore hates the sin that hurts them.
  5)  He will repeatedly forgive us for even the most shameful sins.
  6)  He will always be our strength (Ps 18:2) to overcome all temptations
         despite our weakness.
  7)  He wants us to be reconciled with Him and one another in the Sacrament
         of Reconciliation.
  8)  He wants to heal us.
  9)  He is interceding for us always (Heb 7:25).
  10) He wants us to tell everyone the good news that He will forgive us and
        give us new life.

"So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and favor
and to find help in time of need" (Heb 4:16).  Then, in our weakness, Jesus'
power will reach perfection.


Prayer:  Father, may I run to You at the slightest temptation.

Promise: "People who are healthy do not need a doctor; sick people do.  I have
          come to call sinners, not the self-righteous."  Mk 2:17

Praise:  Thomas prays for help before, during and after temptation.
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
 Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward J. Gratsch
 Imprimatur:  +Most Rev. James H. Garland, V.G.
               Archdiocese of Cincinnati, October 15, 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:14:21 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: EWTN

Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> writes:

> But I remember that a distinct minority (about 10% I think) go to Hell.

This distinct minority wouldn't happen to be the homosexuals?

:-),:-), sorry, Steve, couldn't resist the temptation.

But this number is not too unbelievable to me. When I look around me, at
my neighbors and friends, I see most people just trying to do their best
to be their best. Besides myself, I'd have a hard time trying to pick out
more than 10% that are on a road to hell:-)

>(take the narrow path) and if anything suggests that "few"
>will be saved. (Many are called but few are chosen).

Chosen for what? To go straight to Heaven and bypass purgatory?
I'd gladly take a billion earth years in purgatory for that inevitable
first day of forever with Him. The message appears to be one of hope
for the majority, rather than one leading to despair, since we all
know we are sinners. Just my opinion, of course:-) - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:59:28 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Jan 14

                    Thursday, January 14, 1993

Hebrews 3:7-14                Psalm 95          Mark 1:40-45

                          "HE TOUCHED ME"

"Jesus stretched out His hand, touched him, and said: 'I do will it.  Be
 cured." --Mark 1:41

Jesus reached out and touched the leper, although He knew He would receive the
effects of sin that caused all leprosy.  In fact, by becoming a human being,
Jesus touched everyone.  Thus He contracted all our infirmities and sufferings
(see Is 53:4).  Through His Incarnation, Jesus contaminated Himself with all
the evil in the world.  "For our sakes God made Him Who did not know sin, to be
sin, so that in Him we might become the very holiness of God" (II Cor 5:21).

Imagine you could heal all those contaminated with a deadly virus, just by
touching them.  But what if, when they were healed, you were contaminated, and
your pain became greater each time you touched and healed someone with this
virus?  Under these circumstances, would you touch and heal anyone?  As the
pain increased, would you keep touching more sufferers?  Would you touch a
contaminated person who would cause you to grow sicker, yet would not receive
healing?  Would you touch those sufferers who were your enemies?

May the Holy Spirit show us how much love it took for Jesus to become man,
touch and heal us, and explode in pain on Calvary.


Prayer:  Jesus, let me touch You and feel the evil leave my body, soul, and
         spirit.

Promise: "We have become partners of Christ only if we maintain to the end that
          confidence with which we began."  Heb 3:14

Praise:  Padre Pio held the Eucharistic body of Christ in his Christ-scarred
         hands.
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
 Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward J. Gratsch
 Imprimatur:  +Most Rev. James H. Garland, V.G.
               Archdiocese of Cincinnati, October 15, 1992.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Newman and Liberalism
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:32:35 GMT

In article <9301112351.AA02263@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Hi John,  What I was sharing with you about Newman comes from an
>ex-Roman Catholic priest, now Anglo-Catholic, who is the most erudite
>person on the topic of liturgy of the Church I have ever known.  This
>is not from a book, which represents one point in time in a person's
>life that may later change, but from his collected studies over the
>past 30 years including a year as an exchange priest in England where
>he studied the history of Anglican liturgy for a year.  His point was
>that Newman during that time wished to bring the Church of England
>back closer to the Roman Church, but was rejected by the C of E, who
>were into Evening Prayer mode.  Read the Articles in the 1789 BCP
>about the 'popish' tendencies of some things we accept totally now.
>And I don't proport to present anything 'adequate' about him, only
>what I thought was an interesting vignette in the man's life, in the
>context of a situation in the C of E that is totally unlike what we
>have today.  We practice a living religion, John, which means it grows
>and changes in time.  Here is a tiny example of how things change.
>Shalom, my brother                         Len Howard

Len,
Thanks for the response.  Though it is difficult to see how one could
come to the conclusion that Newman was trying to bring the Anglican Church
closer to the Roman Church, since by Newman's own account of the Tractarian movement he at the time thought the Roman Church had left the Ancient Church.
What he does say is that he was trying to brindg the Anglican Church back to
an appreciation of itself as the actual Ancient Church continuing to
exist in the world.  As I said in my other posting, he identified the
pope as the anit-Christ at the time, thought the Roman cult of the saints was
idolotry, and, though I didn't say this in the earlier posting, had said
that the Roman Church ceased to be part of the ancient Church around the eighth
century.  Now if he held all these things, why would he want to bring the Anglican Church closer to the Roman?

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"bdboyle@erenj.com"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:54:10 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

"Bryan D. Boyle" <bdboyle@ERENJ.COM> responds to me:

>>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.

>So does predisposition to criminal behavior.

Like stealing food to feed your family.

>  Does that make it morally right?  Natural != right.

I guess it comes down to intent and/or conscience.
What's right for a homosexual may not be right for a heterosexual.

> Natural != right.

Unnatural != wrong.  I C that 2:-)

BTW, did you know the reply was set to go only to you? - J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Are all saintly pronouncements right ?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:12:53 GMT

      Dear Angelo, It is impossible that St. Augustine ever
could have said that abortion is OK in first trimester.
Since even if it did not destroy a human life, that is
was not homocide, abortion would still be contraceptive,
and since St. Augustine said about the harshest things
ever said about contraception and taught that it was
a very grave sin, he could not have approved abortion 
at any stage. QED. St. Augustine said that a man who uses
contraception turns his wife into a whore! Not exactly
approval, what? 
     Catholic moralists, including St. Augustine, have always
taught that abortion in all stages of pregnancy is a
grave sin. For a certain period, some theologians held that    
abortion before a certain point in the gestation period
was not 'homocide' because the fetus was 'unformed' or 
not yet 'ensouled'. Nevertheless, they taught that it was
a mortal sin of a very grave kind, and an attack upon life.
These questions about ensoulment etc. resulted from two things.
(1) Aristotle, who taught that fetuses were not human
or ensouled or something until 40 days for a male, and 80 for
a female. This primitive Aristotelian biology obviously has
no validity. (2) In Exodus (I believe) there is a text which
led in Canon Law to a distinction between abortion which was
homocide and abortion which was not. All abortion, again,
was regarded as gravely sinful. 
     The Church has always taught that abortion at all stages
is a very grave sin against life. For a period there were
distinctions made on the basis of ensoulment. But these never
affected the fundamental moral evaluation of the Church of
abortion. 
     St. Augustine could not have said abortion at any stage is
OK. Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:21:21 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

"Stephen A. Creps" <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> writes:
>>Traditional errors are still errors:-)
>   Are you saying that what was taught to the Apostles by Jesus was in
>error;

No, but the way the apostles transcribed the message could have been.
If you could perhaps point out specific examples of Jesus condemning
homosexuality (as opposed to endorsing heterosexuality), it may help
clear things up.

>or do you deny the Apostolic nature of the Church, that what
>has been handed down as Sacred Tradition comes through the Apostles
>from Christ?

Well, I didn't know our prejudice against homosexuality was a Sacred
Tradition. I guess that's not surprising since it's only human nature
(original sin, if you will) to treat as inferior those who are
different (women come to mind also:-).

>>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.

>   The Church teaches that because our human natures are damaged by
>the sin of Adam and Eve, we are subject to sin.

Yes, the Adam and Eve myth aside, we must come to understand our prejudices.

> Are you saying that
>since sin comes natural to all humans (except Jesus and Mary), that
>there is nothing wrong with it;

No, but since I know you love moral relativism:-), let's consider that
for me to make love to my wife is not a sin, while for you to make love
to my wife would be a sin (not an invitation:-). So, for two homosexuals
to make love may not be a sin, while if you or I were to make love to one of
them, it would be a sin. (I'm assuming you're heterosexual.)

...or do you consider just being homosexual to be a sin?

>or do you deny the Church's teaching on Original Sin?

Is this a trick question, Steve:-)? - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:32:55 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 11-Jan-1993 1819" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

>     In his chapter on Scripture in Sykes and Booty's "The Study of
>Anglicanism", Reginald Fuller, retired Professor of New Testament in
>Virginial Theological Siminary makes the following statemt,  "The
>insipration of Scripture is not to be understood as a once-for-all

Fuller certainly isn't calling for constant reinterpretation of scripture;
he is calling for the constant production of witness to the inspiration
of the scripture "rekindled in the community of the faithful, particularly
in the context of the liturgy".

His article continues by discussing Scripture, Tradition, and the authority
of the Church with respect to the interpretation of scripture.  He points
out that "It is on the authority of the Church of the early centuries, not
on the Bible alone, that Anglicanism upholds [the doctrines of the
Trinity and Incarnation]".

To continue to have any claim to be the English continuation of the One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church, Anglicans must continue (or return to, where
our leaders have departed) proclaiming the same faith and morals proclaimed
by the early Church.

/john
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:49:09 GMT

[reply to oneil (Sharon O'Neil)]

No, I don't think that eros precludes phileo or agape.  But the reverse is
also true - Or are you saying that anyone who has affection for you would also
want to have sex with you?  I do not find that true of my friends - most don't
want to have sex with me, nor do I with them.  To make it simple:

Love, in the expressions other than eros need not end up in eros.

In the cases in question (I can find some polygamists in the west that would
meet a similar qualification), erotic expression is prohibited by the church.

Therefore, to let any such love relationship (between the same sex, multiple
partners, even a couple outside of marriage, incest) turn into a sexual one
is a grave sin, and undoes any such love alledged or existant originally.

You are quite true that heterosexuals can be as bad or worse.  But simply
finding a worse example doesn't let you off the hook - The couple who left
their children alone can't plead, "Well, Jeffer Dahmer killed a lot of people
so we shouldn't suffer any penalty".

Let me ask you a question - How do you determine if something is right or
wrong, i.e. an evil, good, or possibly neutral act?  And can/should this be
extended to society in general?  To answer it for myself, the two main sources
are church teaching and civil law.  The former is derived from Scripture,
Tradition, and Natural Law.  The latter derives mainly from Natural Law and
the theory of Human Rights and responsibilities as embodied in our constitution
and the Philosophy behind it (e.g. Locke, Smith, etc.).  This often produces
an answer I don't like, or find easy to live with, but will result in the
ultimate good.

---
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
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:20:00 PDT
From:         frank lopez <FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: a miracle story

> So one night Joe somehow sneaks into the baby's room--
> this is in the middle of the night--- armed with a Rosary
> and some holy water (he seems to have thought you needed
> holy water to baptize with). He prays over the baby and
> baptizes him.
>     The next day the nurse goes in to check the baby's
> heart function (or whatever it's called). Instead of being
> 17%, as the day before, it has jumped to 37%. (The numbers
> are from memory, the jump may have been even more).
> The nurse cannot believe it and has the monitor checked.
> It is not broken! Indeed the baby's heart overnight has taken
> a dramatic turn for the better. It continues to get stronger
> for a couple weeks, and then the doctors tell Joe the baby
> is completely fine and he can take him home!
>     I should emphasize that Joe had refused to go along
> with either the abortion idea or the wrongful birth suit
> idea.
>     A miracle? Who knows. But it sure sounds like one
> to me.        Steve.


  Praise the Lord!  My prayers will be for both the child and mother.

  Frank

>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: EWTN
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:57:33 GMT

In article <C0G5FK.1xu@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>     I have to admit that I also find it hard to swallow
>the authenticity of the Medjugorje apparitions. About
>five years ago I was given some literature about Medj..
>written by a Lutheran pastor who was a big devotee of
>these apparitions. I was also given some other "pro-Medj.."
>literature. When I started reading it I was disposed to
>believe it. But the more I read the more I felt it
>did not ring true. One thing I felt was particularly
>strange. One of the "visionaries" asked Our Lady how
>many people went to Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. Our
>Lady responded with a statistical breakdown! I forget
>the percentages. But I remember that a distinct minority
>(about 10% I think) go to Hell. That Mary would divulge
>such information seems to me to be absurd. The disciples

I tend to stay out of these conversations, as I am somewhat reluctant to
accept particular apparitions, though I recognize the possibility of such.
I lean towards Lourdes and Fatima, and have no idea of what to think about
Medjugorje, though at this point I am leaning against.
In defense of these apparitions though, I would just like to make a point
about the reportage of such.
I have heard so many things about what Our Lady said at Lourdes or at
Fatima that just boggle the mind; similarly with Medjugorje.  The problem
is I usually here it from someone who heard it from somebody who heard it
from so-and-so who heard it from their aunt, who heard it from her step-sister
who heard it from .......... who heard it from one of the visionaries who
heard it from Our Lady.  This is not a phenomenon associated only with
spurious apparitions; from what I have read of Lourdes, and the little I've
read of Fatima, this was a problem associated with those apparitions also.My point is in any situation like this, authentic or not, it is difficult and well
nye impossible to get the unadulterated truth.  Of their very nature apparitions
have only a few eye-witnesses.  And as they are not subjects of Apostolic faith,
I do not see that the strange things one heres about them one-hundred-thousandth-hand, tell for against them.  I'm not sure I should look down upon the 
authenticity of these purported apparitions based upon the kooky things
I've heard, because I'm not sure these things are in any adequatel way 
accurate reporting of what these purported visionaries are experiencing.

Just my two cents.
Peace and happy new year,
John

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: EWTN
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:40:56 GMT

In article <k21TwB2w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Was wondering if anyone had any opinions regarding EWTN and its programming.

I find it much to conservative for my tastes.  It seems to smack so much of
the magic approach to religion that I find so distasteful.  Occasionally some
of the more 'technical' talks are informative.  I am sorry to feel so
judgemental but the 'if we all just spend more time in front of the Blessed
Sacrament' approach is not what I believe in.  I think we should be watching
CNN and finding out what the world problems are, reading the local paper to
see when the next public hearing on opening a homeless shelter will be
held,  and talking to our brothers and sisters in the office and on the 
street to find out what their concerns are ... and then acting on that 
information in a christian and Catholic way.  I do like Mike Manning a bit.
I also find myself nodding off during some of the shows.

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