HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Just War (long)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:04:32 GMT

 Dear Harry, You are picking that (admittedly
overly ambiguous) statement out of context. 
I had been implicitly accused of simply
parroting views on which I had no heartfelt
convictions. I would note simply that
(a) Catholics also believe in conscience.
As Pius XII taught, it is always a sin to disobey your
conscience. (b) Catholics believe that our 
consciences are not a law unto themselves. They
should judge according to objective standards
of right and wrong, about which standards we
should be willing to accept instruction from 
the Church. (c) In some cases the teaching of
the Church may simply tell us what we already knew.
It was this last point I was making in reference to 
my views on just war. Indeed if the moral
teaching of the Church never agreed with what our
hearts told us anyway, we would have a problem!
I am not a Protestant!! Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Women's ordination yet again *sigh*
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:13:50 GMT

In article <9211082106.AA13517@chaos.intercon.com> Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM> writes:
>
>Jim, I agree with you here (which should come as no surprise :)).  This is,
>in essence, the kind of reason that I cannot agree with doctrines based on
>the idea that "if it is not mandatory, it is forbidden," whether those
>doctrines concern the sacraments or any other aspects of the life of the
>Church and the people of God.
>
>It is the (often heated) assertions concerning what God does not (or worse
>yet, *cannot*) do that I cannot accept.  I am not willing to say that God
>does not or cannot transform grape juice or a loaf of sourdough into the Body
>and Blood of Jesus Christ.  I am not willing to say that God does not or
>cannot call women to sacramental ministry.  I am, in fact, not willing to
>place any limits upon the scope of the works of the Almighty.  It is not our
>place to do so.

Neither, however, is it our place to say that because God can do something, he
either does or must do something, in order to live up to our notions of what
is right and proper for God to do.
Peace,
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:32:47 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo

John,
Please go on, you say it is a sacrament of _character_ in a philosophical
sense. What _character_ differences are there in priests which set them
apart from any other person, or what _character_ difference would you
say that a woman who feels called to the priesthood is not capable of
having? It seems some people are hung up on the mother/father concept,
to me, a parent is a parent, and I would have no problem with addressing
a priest as Mother Joan if no other suitable colloquialism is found:-)
My idea of God is of a parent, with the best traits of what we have
traditionally associated with mothers and fathers. -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:24:28 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 04-Nov-1992 1924" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      RE: FAQ for Catholic Mailing List

I'll offer to help with the Anglican section, as long as you take care
of the distribution of it along with the rest of the FAQ.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:14:44 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Brent Winiger (ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU) writes:

>I really can't picture God condemming the actions of one person because that
>person knew his action was wrong while justifying the same action in another
>person because that person felt good about it.

I thought most Catholics believe and that the church teaches that intention is a
necessary part of sin.  If it is not, then I can agree with you on this.  If sin
is, on the other hand, willful, then it is most definitely possible for one
person to sin while another who performs exactly the same actions does not, and
J.J. is correct.

In fact, I *know* I've seen this condition stated in these very messages in the
not-too-distant past.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 12:44:37 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Bellarmine on Galileo

In article <921106110555.28e2bb3a@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
says:
>
<<Stuff deleted>>
>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?)

The distinguishing function of a priest is not to teach and lead.  It is
to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass.

My own guess is that ordaining women to the ministry is not a direct
cause of the decline of mainline Protestant churches.  I think the main
cause of that decline is an overemphasis on the social gospel and a lack
of emphasis on Jesus as God incarnate and our savior.  As Sir Arnold Lunn
said in the early thirties, even before he became a Catholic, there is
little interest in sermons on the text, "For God so loved the world that
He inspired a certain Jew to inform his contemporaries that there is a
great deal to be said for loving one's neighbour."

Protestant ministers are not priests in the Catholic and Orthodox sense
of the word.  They have only the universal priesthood of the laity that
all Christians have from their baptism.  Protestants, especially of the
Evangelical and Fundamentalist variety, firmly insist that their ministers
are not priests in the Catholic and Orthodox sense and that Catholic and
Orthodox priests aren't either because they deny that Christinstituted
a priesthood.  Therefore, even the success of female ministersin being
ministers would have nothing to do with whether or not womencan be
ordained as priests.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm   mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz)
Subject: Re: arrogance
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:30:13 GMT

In article <BxM8qC.EE0@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>    I must confess to being completely amazed
>by the serene, unclouded, unwavering, and
>untroubled faith some people have in themselves.
>You know in physics one comes across this kind
>of thing from time to time: some guy comes in
>to a Physics Department with his own theory
>showing that Einstein was wrong, or that the
>whole Physics "establishment" is wrong. Usually
>they are just harmless nuts. But anyone who 
>undertakes to really learn any deep or difficult
>subject quickly learns humility. The "establishment"
>includes a lot of very smart people, many of whom
>are at least as smart as oneself! They are not all
>stupid, perverse, blind, ignorant fools. It
>is the same in theology. Over the last two thousand
>years there have been a lot of Christians. Many
>of them underwent persecution and martyrdom. 
>Many of them knew something about life and its
>problems. Many learned wisdom from suffering. 
****

Hi Stephen,

I could have sent this by e-mail but I wanted to say
publicly, thanks for writing this!  Amen brother!
Really!  

I suppose I liked it because I am given to emotional outpourings
of love for the 2000 years of the Church and hate to see it dismissed
so cavalierly as it appears to be here... I guess also I like to
see someone else posting from U. of D. as you appear to be.

At any rate, thanks.  I know, from the other point of view, that
there's probably a deep love for Christ and the Church in the hearts
of those who appear most critical of it for being patriarchal,
etc.  Of course there is.  My postings aren't reasoned arguments
and much of what goes on here is reasoned argument, and I have always
had much difficulty in reasoned argument.  I just don't like the
idea of what has the appearance of shopping cart Catholicism, of
picking and choosing what to believe, out of what the Church teaches.
Of dismissing easily what the Church teaches, because it has been
written by a male hierarchy.  I read somewhere recently that someone
commented that had Dorothy Day been living today, she most likely
could have had her Church and her man.  That becoming a Catholic would
not have been so dramatic an occurence that she would have had to choose 
between the two.  That's like saying that Thomas More could have kept
his head if he'd been living today, because who cares about divorce
anymore?  (I know I know, it wasn't just the divorce).  But I'm not
sure it's great that our faith isn't seen as that much of a threat
anymore.  Of course I want unity and peace among all but the day there
is no sacrifice involved in fidelity to Christ's teachings, that's a
day I rue.

Rae
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:02:49 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <1992Nov9.152451.29288@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
> This
> 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.

In my opinion this is a highly regrettable view to hold, and shows little
sense of proportion as to what issues can or should endanger the unity of
the Church. Excommunicating (or, as here, deeming to have
excommunicated itself) that part of the Church which flouts a minor liturgical
rubric doesn't look much to me like a proper understanding of the importance
of the organic unity of the Body of Christ. Nor is it the way the Church has
ever worked. There were, doubtless, vast hordes of (well, at least two) Bryan
Boyle soundalikes in the middle of the nineteenth century trying to uphold
the papal ban on rail travel (on the grounds, I seem to remember, that easy
travel was an aid to promiscuity), but common sense eventually prevailed,
even in the Vatican.

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
Subject: Re: post-election thoughts
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:32:46 GMT

jslindst@waltari.helsinki.fi (Jouko Lindstedt) writes:

>To me it seems a bit odd that so many American Catholics seem to have
>voted for Bush only because of Clinton's pro-abortion views. In several
>other issues, such as social welfare, Clinton's opinions seem to be more
>in accordance with Christian charity than Bush's. 

If a candidate advocates the wholesale slaughter of innocents, how can anyone
consider voting for him, even if his other views are reasonable? Certain
kinds of positions should automatically disqualify a candidate from 
consideration by good people. 

If Charles Manson ran for office, would his views on free trade be relevant?
Or Adolf Hitler's views on agricultural policy? Or Josef Stalin's opinions 
about environmentalism? Of course not. These men held views about killing
people which make them completely unacceptable as leaders. Note that some of 
the worst atrocities of the twentieth century occurred because the latter two 
men did achieve public office. 

If we believe (and we do, as Catholics) that legalized abortion is the 
wholesale slaughter of innocents, then how could anyone even consider voting 
for someone who advocated this sort of policy? 

In a democratic society, citizens are responsible for choosing the best
candidate to govern the country. The first and foremost duty of any
government is to protect the lives of the people falling under its 
jurisdiction. I believe that choosing a candidate who fails in this primary
duty is an irresponsible act, even if that candidate more than adequately 
fulfils all the other requirements of government. 

If I were an American (I'm not), and if I had to choose a candidate in the
recent election, I probably would have chosen Clinton if he had been pro-life.
But because he was not, and Perot was not, my choice would have fallen on
Bush, despite his inadequacies.

But Clinton won, not Bush. My advice to American Catholics is this: hunker down
and brace for trouble, because the US has now both a president and a majority 
of congressmen catering to special interest groups on the left, many of whom 
consider themselves enemies of traditional (christian-derived) morality in
general, and Catholicism in particular. The so-called "Freedom of Choice"
bill is one example of this catering. 

God bless,

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab) 
Subject: Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:03:16 CST
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>    More seriously: There is an analogy -- though not exact -- between
> theology and physical science.  The latter appeal to 'data' -- that is
> 'things given".  Given by what? By experiment. The former appeals to the
> 'data of revelation'. Some liberals ask whether it is not an abandonment
> of our reason to submit to authority, or to accept doctrines which are
> difficult to understand or to reconcile with other things we know. The
> answer is that scientists do that all the time. There is no appeal from
> an experimental fact, it has an authority as great as any Pope has ever
> claimed! As a theorist (you are right there, I am one) I may not like
> what the experiment said. I may not see how to reconcile it with current
> theory. But I have to accept it however strange and anomalous it seems.
> Of course experiments can be wrong. I won't go into that now. But the
> faith as I have argued before is the Faith of the Church.

Well, Steve, since I have been flamed for making very similar statements, I
feel compelled to do likewise.  :)

In brief, the argument is that any experiment, although testing a
hypothesis, rests upon a set of implicit and explicit postulates, including
proper experimental design and conditions, and appropriate background theory
for interpreting the data.  Therefore, the truth of "experimental fact" does
depend on what you take as your starting point.

Now, in the scientific community, there is often more agreement on what the
correct set of postulates are, but if you look at those cases where there is
a disagreement, the arguments are just as fervent as any religious
discussion.  So, in both cases it boils down to the following:  what do you
believe to be true?  What do those around you believe to be true?

-- 
  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"  
        _The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
      The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:27:08 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
  [ acolyte stuff deleted]
>or whatever were never done away with.  The bells are still called for at the
>elevation(s), and the responses that should be provided to the priest's 

"per local custom" at the elevation, and it says the priest or minister
GIRM 109

>PRIEST a mere presider is, in my estimation, a denegration of the special...
          ^^^^
I didn't see that in the original post.  It seems you are the one denegrating
the presider.

>         ...               But, I think it is an egregarious abuse of the 
                                                  egregious ?
>children to allow young girls to be altar servers (which is not licit in any 
>case, regardless of the intention.).  What we are doing is practicing a blatant
>double standard: "well, if you don't agree with what someone in authority 
>has decided, you can ignore it if you don't like it...".  Even worse, in 

How about if I consider it unloving to disallow this.  In my book unloving
equates to sinful.  Where does that leave me and my conscience?

We do not have female altar servers or assistants (whatever) yet, and we are
not about to have them until the bishop so directs.  However, I will continue
to voice my support for this and will predict that this will happen within
5 years, and it will come all the way from Rome.

I certainly will not complain to the pastor, bishop, or pope if I find myself
in a parish where this is already an accepted practice.

>Yeah, real strict, and probably not "politically correct".  But faithful to
>Roman (as opposed to american) Catholic faith.
>
>Bryan D. Boyle  

Roman, American ... it is you who are dividing us out.  I choose not to make
this distinction.  I am simply a member of the church that meets at Our
Lady of the Desert.  My bishop lives in San Bernardino, my pope in Rome.
I think this distinction is equivalent to the Protestant bashing that I am
so opposed to.  "Look at those American Catholics! I'm glad I'm not one
of them!".  Yuck.

Do you really think I/we are in favor of thing like this (yes women priests
too) because it is "politically correct"?  How about morally correct.
When one is confronted with an order or rule that one considers morally
incorrect what is one to do?

I don't think anyone here is pushing for a bishop to ordain a woman on his
own, but for the church magisterium to reconsider.  Again, we know what the
rules are, what we are asking is whether or not you personally would
be supportive of this change.  Saying it can't be done is a non-answer.

Have a good weekend everyone!
Bob
--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      RE: Ordination of Women -- Inter Insigniores -- Part 2 of 2
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:12:32 GMT

In article <00963809.1AF19720.16599@swdev.si.com> "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM> writes:
>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, Brian, Brian,... are you saying that female priests are part of the form
or content of the gospel message?

Peace,
John
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: tjrad@iastate.edu (Thomas J Radosevich)
Subject: Re: Early Christian Church
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:25:03 GMT

In <1992Nov10.212522.12780@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> cawcolli@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Wayne Collins) writes:

>	I'm interested in learning something about the early developement of
>the Christian faith, the first 100 years. Can someone direct me to
>books/authors that will provide me with an objective viewpoint. I'd like to
>read works that really help seperate fact from fiction. I hope this is the
>right newsgroup with which to consult. If you can assist, please e-mail me
>at the above address. Thanks.

If you would'nt mind, could you post the list when you get it?

Tom
From: JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:56:00 GMT
Organization: The American University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              12 Nov 1992 11:08:43 MST from <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:08:43 MST Brent Winiger asked J.J.:
>What criteria would you use for determining which of the two persons sinned
>and which did not?  What criteria does God use?  Shouldn't people have an
>objective criteria to use as guidelines for their lives?

Why should J.J. have to determine which of the two person sinned and
which did not?  That is for each person to determine for themselves.

Brent, is it objectively and always wrong to kill? How about during a
war? How about killing civilians during a war? How about killing in self-
defense?

Actions are not, in themselves, sinful. The sin enters because of the
context of the action and the mental state of the participant(s). People
should have assistance from the Church in developing their consciences,
but the ultimate decision on whether an act is sinful is between the
person commiting the act and God.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:15:52 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:56:24 GMT Bryan D. Boyle said:
>children to allow young girls to be altar servers (which is not licit in any
-----some text deleted-----

>case, regardless of the intention.).  What we are doing is practicing a blatant
>double standard: "well, if you don't agree with what someone in authority
>has decided, you can ignore it if you don't like it...".  Even worse, in
>my estimation, is lying about whether it is allowed (and it is not) to
>soothe or smooth over people's feelings or be "in sync with the modern world".
>What is the fuss is about?  Simply?  There are no current indults, motu
>proprio, or
>permissions from the Holy Father, the Vatican, or Bishops (collegially)
>permitting
>female persons to act as, work as, be in the place of, or provide services to
>the
>priest as outlined in the GIRM.  requests for relief have been, and are
>currently
>being refused by the hierarchy.
>
>Yeah, real strict, and probably not "politically correct".  But faithful to
>Roman (as opposed to american) Catholic faith.

Bryan

The fact remains that young girls do serve at Mass, young boys do not say
the responses and in many cases there are no servers at all.

Dick

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|