HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:46:47 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Dec. 12

                    Saturday, December 12, 1992
                       Our Lady of Guadalupe

Sirach 48:1-4, 9-11          Psalm 80           Matthew 17:10-13

                        THREE ADVENT PEOPLE

"You are destined, it is written, in time to come to put an end to wrath
 before the day of the Lord." --Sirach 48:10

Mary and Elijah both were taken up into heaven (Sir 48:9).  They were used
by God to bring about the conversion of a whole nation (I Kgs 18:39).
Furthermore, Mary and Elijah both prepare the way of the Lord -- Mary as
God's mother and Elijah as His prophet (Mt 17:10-11).

To be prepared for Christ's Christmas-coming, we need Mary to mother and
nurture us.  When she visits us, we will feel new life quicken within us
and be filled with the Holy Spirit, the only authentic Christmas spirit
(see Lk 1:41).

To be prepared for Christmas, we also need Elijah, and John the Baptizer,
the new Elijah (Mt 17:13).  He will deepen our faith by proclaiming God's
word to us.  We will be convicted of our sins.  The hearts of fathers will
turn back to their sons (Sir 48:10), and all will be reconciled, forgiving,
and forgiven.  Thus mountains of doubt, unforgiveness, and resentment will
be moved, and the way of the Lord made straight.

Mary, Elijah, and John the Baptizer are the Heart of Advent.  Because there
can be no true Christmas without Advent, we need to meet these three people
soon.


Prayer:  Father, may I meet Our Lady of Guadalupe, Elijah, and John this
         Advent.

Promise: "Elijah is indeed coming, and he will restore everything."
         --Mt 17:11

Praise:  Our Lady of Guadalupe used a peasant and his bishop to convert a
         continent.
-----
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, August 17, 1992.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Ignore...is problem solved with NNTP?
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:47:20 GMT

I know, please don't flame me, but I am checking to see if a problem
with my nntp host is gone that only manifested itself on the (get
this...)
*.test groups.



-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Opinions are mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer    |PVT/ASEL/IA
bdboyle@erenj.com  |(908) 730 3338
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:52:53 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Queens school board
              14 Dec 1992 10:33:44 -0500 from <URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:33:44 -0500 <J.J.> said:
>
>From what my local paper reported on the New York issue, the fuss was over
>two books, one about so-and-so has two mommies and the other about some
>father's boyfriend. There wasn't any mention of teaching the basics of
>anal intercourse to first graders, and knowing the paper's lust for
>sensationalism, I would think that if that was the issue, it would have
>been reported. It seems the idea they are trying to get across is that
>homosexuals are real people too. -J.J.

Did your paper also report on the suspension of the democratically elected
School Board J.J.?  At least in Parochial Schools, parents have more options
if they disagree with the curriculum.  It seems that in in many Public Schools,
a few elite people are dictating what is to be taught regardless of the
parents concerns.
      My paper did specifically report that many parents were objecting
because anal intercourse was referred to in the curriculum for first graders.
      Did any of you see Cal Thomas' latest column?  He made reference to
a school district in Virginia that is attempting to eliminate all references
to Christmas.  (Separation of Church and State again) The district will now
refer to what used to be Christmas as "The Winter Holiday".  I'm sure most of
you have read that many of the elementary school books now refer to Pilgrims as
people who "traveled great distances".  Its really a shame that we are letting
history be revised by those who wish to eliminate references to religion, and
particularly Christianity's role in history.

Brent
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.190404.3641@news.nd.edu> jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>In article <9212140723.AA25577@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>>Jim, this sacrament is done on behalf of the infant.  The questions,
>>answers, promises, and renouncing is done by the parents on behalf of
>>their kid.  If they do not follow up with the promises made at the
>>time of the baptism, and, therefore, if the promises made by the
>>parents are not true, then I question the validity of the sacrament.
>
>Len,  ...
>it was the Donatist heresy of the fourth century (?) that suggested
>that the moral character of the minister of the sacrmament could
>undermine its efficacy.  By citing that I am not calling you a 
>heretic.  I'm just suggesting that the Church has addressed this
>issue already a long time ago.  Its conclusion at the time, which
>I take to still be its conclusion, is that the personal character
>of the human beings involved has nothing to do with the efficacy
>of Christ's sacraments.
>John

John, if the parties to a marriage do not enter into the marriage with
good intentions then that marriage is subject to annulment.  That is,
the church states that there was indeed no marriage. The personal
inclination, if not their character, certainly does bear on that sacrament.
If an adult were to lie about intentions at baptism I would think that too
would have some meaning.  Len was not talking about the character of the
presider, but about the participants.  What I think matters is the
acceptance of the baptized when the age of reason is reached.  Remember God
exists outside of time. The fact that a few years may have elapsed is
inconsequential and the infant-turned-adult has the same right to accept
or reject their baptism.  God's grace while freely given certainly can 
be rejected. Even thought the church teaches that baptism, confirmation, and
orders "imprint a character" and cannot be repeated, they must be 
accepted, don't you think?

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
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:03:24 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Queens school board

Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> writes:
>    Well, JJ, if there is to be "brainwashing" of little
>children, at least let it be washing rather than fouling.
>Steve.

The "fouling" I saw in the letter was that by thanking their
mothers for not aborting them, they insinuate that their
mothers "might" have considered the possibility. For most
married Catholics (like myself), this was not a possibility
worth considering, and if it had been my child writing the
letter, I'd have been on that teacher's case for the
insinuation. ...but that's just me -J.J.
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:47:54 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1fc2

bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
> I would dare say that the Church that was 
> founded by Jesus Christ is a higher authority than whatever corrupt, 
> venal method of government we have today.  If push came to shove, I 
> would trust my eternal happiness to the Church rather than our 
> government. 

I do so even today, for that matter, and regularly oppose the actions of my 
government because of my faith.  I simply wanted to point out that there are 
those who see this, and the more tangible promises involved in holy orders, 
to be a conflict of interest.  I do not, but it is an accusation I have heard 
many times--that someone who serves the will of God cannot serve the will of 
the people.  I personally think this is almost funny in its misconception, 
but it is still a justification people use.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:12:23 GMT

In article <BzBMJq.B4u@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:
>jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>
>>Do we or do we not have laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape, all of
>>which seem to be matters of morality and values.  How do laws designed to
>>prohibit abortion differ significantly in intention from these laws?
>>Peace and Happy Advent.
>>John\
>
>They differ significantly.  Go take a poll somewhere in your town.  Ask how
>many people feel there should be laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape.
>Then ask about abortion.  I think that you'll find a massive agreement
>about the first bunch, and something close to an even split for abortion
>(or maybe a little lopsided, depending where you live).  Most anyone,
>regardless of religious affiliation, will have some set of guidelines of
>things which they feel are right and wrong.  When enough people agree on
>one of these issues, it becomes law.  The reason it needs to become law is
>that some small fraction of the population will not agree to it.
>In the case of abortion, a majority of the people in the US believe that
>it should be legal.  That's why its different from the above-mentioned
>crimes.
>
In some areas of New York city, murder and rape is considered an
inconvenience that interrupts the open selling of drugs by armed
children on street corners.  Prostitution is openly practiced

while the police look on.  The majority of people in those areas,
if not supporting these vicious vices, at least by their silence, 
implicitly allow this kind of thing to continue to go on.  So, does
that mean that NYC should decriminalize murder, rape, and drug dealing
(Even I don't think Dinkens would be that stupid, but, then, he
has been known to surprise people)?  There are probably enough 
people in the city that would not even blink an eye if it happened.

Just because laws are passed to suit the majority's convenience, it
still doesn't make it morally right.  Not situationally moral, mind you.
There are still absolutes.  

-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Opinions are mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer    |Internet Firewall Administration
bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see the Net...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:07:51 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Dec 14

                    Monday, December 14, 1992
          John of the Cross, Priest and Doctor, Memorial

Numbers 24:2-7, 15-17       Psalm 25                    Matthew 21:23-27

                         AUTHORITATIVE

"I, too, will ask a question.  If you answer it for Me, then I will tell you
 on what authority I do the things I do." --Matthew 21:24

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus (Mt 28:16).  He
is the King of kings and Lord of lords.  He has authority over demons,
diseases, and natural elements.  He even has authority over death, and He has
given that authority to us, His followers.  In Him, we have authority over all
demons and diseases (Mt 10:1).  We too can stop storms, do miracles, and
raise the dead.  We have awesome authority to bring down the strongholds of
the evil one (see II Cor 10:4).  Yet tragically, most Christians hardly
understand or use any of their authority.

The chief priests and elders likewise did not understand Jesus' authority.
They asked Jesus: "On what authority are you doing these things?" (Mt 21:23)
That's a good question for us to begin with as we try to understand and use
the authority Jesus has given us in His name.  However, Jesus refused to
answer the chief priests' and elders' question until they answered His question
about the origin of John's baptism (Mt 21:25).  Because John's baptism was a
baptism of repentance, by His question Jesus was calling the religious leaders
to repent.  The conclusion is: Until we deeply repent, we will not understand
or use our authority.  Until we're _under_ Jesus' authority, we cannot be
_in_ authority over the devil  Repent!


Prayer:  Father, in the next month, may I do whatever it takes to use my
             authority in Jesus' name.

Promise: "A star shall advance from Jacob, and a staff shall rise from
              Israel."  --Nm 24:17

Praise:  John of the Cross suffered imprisonment because of his commitment
             to the Church.
-----
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, August 17, 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:00:06 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)

john ocallaghan <jocallag@DARWIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>Do we or do we not have laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape, all of
>which seem to be matters of morality and values.  How do laws designed to
>prohibit abortion differ significantly in intention from these laws?

The "victim" is not a "legal" person. (just a guess:-) -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: infant baptism
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:33:05 GMT

    On the question of whether infants whose parents are
unlikely to raise them in the faith should be baptized, I
have a couple of observations. The argument against doing
so is not, as I see it, based on any presumed *invalidity* 
of such baptism, but on its *validity*! It is true that
baptism washes away Original Sin, and that is a powerful
argument for baptising infants in danger of imminent death, 
since we cannot presume -- though we can hope -- that those
infants who die in Original Sin are saved. But on the
other side of the scale is the fact that Baptism brings
the recipient into a new relationship with God which carries
obligations as well as benefits. (If we deny that the infant
can incur obligations, we should also deny he can incur the
benefit!). To take one example out of many: his or her 
eventual marriage will be a sacramental and indissoluble
marriage because he or she is baptised. Moreover, every sin
that person commits is then a sin against the Body of Christ.
It is a post-baptismal sin which are qualitatively to be
distinguished from sins before baptism. For example, we know
that baptism (of an adult) washes away all sins committed
before baptism, whereas post-baptismal sin even if forgiven
through the sacrament of reconciliation, must be expiated
through penance or in purgatory. 
    If one believes at all that the baptism of an infant 
produces some objective and permanent change in the status
of that infant (else why the discussion at all?) then one
must remember that this change involves commitments and
obligations -- indeed burdens (though Jesus says they are 
light)-- and we should not impose them on a child whom
we do not intend to equip to carry them.
   Second, if we really believed that we should baptise
all infants regardless of the faith or future intentions
of their parents, would that not argue that we should run
around baptising, even against the will of the parents,
Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc babies? That would be clearly 
wrong (though if the baby were definetely about to die
perhaps not.)   Steve.
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:36:54 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <921215160006.2020bfba@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>john ocallaghan <jocallag@DARWIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>>Do we or do we not have laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape, all of
>>which seem to be matters of morality and values.  How do laws designed to
>>prohibit abortion differ significantly in intention from these laws?
>
>The "victim" is not a "legal" person. (just a guess:-) -J.J.

No doubt.  But the fact of legislation prohibiting murder, theft, and rape
against individuals specified by the legislation is what constitutes those
individuals as "legal" legal persons, i.e. the individuals to be counted as
"legal" persons is established by the law.  Individuals are not "legal" persons
prior to their becoming subject to a law either by prohibition or protection.
So their "legal" personhood does not determine who is covered by the legislation.  The legislation constitutes who is to be considered a "legal" person.  The
question then becomes why certain classes of individuals are segragated from
protection by law, and thus not considered "legal persons."  As American 
history, as well as the history of other nations shows, such decisions are
usually based upon the exercise of power, not reflection on the reality of
human personhood which is prior to "legal" personhood.

But in any event, legislation protecting the "victims" in this case would
constitute them as "legal" persons.

Peace, and Happy Advent.
John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:16:53 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
              infants in the roman catholic church" (Dec 15, 8:48am)

Hi Don;  To continue your thoughts, if the parents do not _really_
renoun renounce the evil prs of the, renounce all sinful desires, and
turn to Jesus Christ and accepttheri savior, is the baptism still
valid just by action of sprinkling the kid with holy water and making
the sign of the cross on his forehead?

Is there no more to baptism than physical action and words by the
priest?   Then why have the parents and godparents say anything at all
other than "We bring this child to be baptized."

I think we are getting away from the original question which was "Do
the parents have to be married to get the child baptized."   And I
think we all agree that the answer to that question is "NO".   Now we
are discussing the pastoral aspects of the sacrament.  And here is
where I think the intentionality and commitment of the parents of the
child is important.

Shalom,                                   Len Howard   -
tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:16:03 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Clergy Trial Update
              Clergy Trial Update" (Dec 12,  1:33am)

Hold on, people.  Are we not being a bit judgemental about this
situation.  We have now a society that is attuned to sexual harassment
in all its forms.  We also have a society that has had sexual
harassement in all its forms for many years.  Isn't it a bit much to
expect the institutional church to be able to respond immediately to
the stimulus of the problem given the fact that it has existed sub
rosa for centuries?  The church will deal with it, but it will take
cooperation, compassion and consideration from all parties.  I don't
really see this as a matter of
'covering up' anything as much as I see it as a matter of the bishops
not quite knowing how to handle it, so they counsel the involved
priest briefly, and send him somewhere else.....maybe they pass on the
word to the receiving bishop and maybe they don't.  We need to allow
confession, contriteness, repentence and foregiveness to work, people.
     From what I have seen in our church, the ECUSA, the problem is
recognized and programs are being instituted to identify the problems
when they exist, and deal with them when they are identified.  But
give the institution a chance, eh?  It is a big organization, and
change in direction comes slowly.  Let's have a bit of understanding.

Shalom,                            Len Howard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:09:36 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 17-Dec-1992 1003" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Asylum (sanctuary)

>Also, you mention allegience, I said obedience (which as I see it is
>much stronger).  What exactly is allegience?  Would a practicing
>Anglican have allegience to the Queen as the head of his Church and
>therefor be excluded, even though he is American, from public office?

The English Monarch is temporal head _only_ of the Church of England, and
not even of the Episcopal Church of Scotland or of The Church in Wales.
In fact, under civil law, the Monarch becomes a Presbyterian when she
crosses the border into Scotland, which, btw, is why Anne was just married
in a Presbyterian Church in Scotland:  the Church of England would not
remarry her after her divorce.

Amanda is probably unaware that Vatican II defined the primacy of the
Pope in terms of collegiality rather than allegiance or obedience, which,
if the interpretation of this moves in the direction that some (but not
all) would like to see, could actually become a basis for the kind of
"first among equals" that Orthodox and Anglicans would like to see for
reunification of the three branches of the Catholic Church.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:35:00 EST
From:         DGPAZ@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU
Subject:      Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church

> In article <9212140723.AA25577@pegasus.com> Len Howard
<tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

>this sacrament is done on behalf of the infant.  The questions,
>answers, promises, and renouncing is done by the parents on behalf of
>their kid.  If they do not follow up with the promises made at the
>time of the baptism, and, therefore, if the promises made by the
>parents are not true, then I question the validity of the sacrament.

I think this verges on receptionism.

Denis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:12:54 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
              (Dec 17,  8:47am)

Don, since the new Book of Common Prayer was writtin by the Episcopal
Church of the United States, the swearing of allegience to the
King/Queen of England have not been a part of the prayers.  We have a
familial relationship with the Church of England, but are not bound by
their beliefs, nor they ours.  So no
'conflict of national interest' will apply in the ECUSA.

Shalom,                           Len Howard
                                  tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU