HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Glasgow University - Department of Computing Science
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:27:22 GMT
From:         "N.O. Monaghan" <monaghan@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: directions

Joan Rasch writes:
> > I wonder if anyone else has noticed that it is perhaps those churches
> > and seminaries which are doing least to adapt to the modern world (by
> > that I mean, doing least to change fundamental beliefs, principles,
> > social outlooks and so on) which are the most flourishing.
>
> On the other hand, one could also argue that giving people a chance to
> engage in denial about the real world by isolating themselves from any-
> thing that engages them with the complexity and discomfort and ambiguity
> that's out there in the modern world indeed may well be popular.  So are
> pain-killing drugs.  People may well feel better by being sealed off from
> conflict, but I don't think it ultimately does them, or the world, any
> good.

Well, I was not so much suggesting ignoring the world entirely - more
living in the modern world, but refusing to accept those beliefs which
are at odds with the faith. It means not changing beliefs simply because
the majority hold certain things to be true. It means not having to do
things simply because everyone else is doing them - an example is having
the courage and self-control not to have a television. One of the main
problems is, at least in the English speaking world, that modern states
are fundamentally anti-Catholic - until such time that things change and
we live in a Catholic state which is based on the true Kingship of
Christ, we must put up with what we have - by all means become involved
in civil affairs within the state in order to improve matters and play a
part - but resist the temptation to be subverted into supporting ideas
or movements which we ought not to support. This is difficult to do as
virtually all major political movements and parties are opposed to the
social Kingship of Christ, putting as they do, the rights of Man before
the rights of God.

Nils.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
N.O. Monaghan

monaghan@dcs.gla.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary... 
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:23:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.184803.3790@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>In article <9301251521.AA20456@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>,         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, writes:
>> 
>>     The Church teaches that any sexual act outside of the (possibly
>>     fertile) marital act is a grievous sin and mortal to the spiritual life
>>     of the soul.  The teaching is that these sexual acts (masturbation,
>>     homosexual acts, heterosexual acts outside of marriage, marital
>>     contraceptive intercourse, etc.) are intrinsically evil in and of
>>     themselves.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>     Thus, in this climate, we need to affirm in the public forum what the
>>     Church teaches about sexuality and that what the Church teaches is the
>>     Truth.
>
>Some of what the Vatican teaches is the Truth.  Some of it isn't.  What
>they teach about homosexuality isn't.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


And to what do you attribute this startling revelation?  The misinformed
judgement of ex-catholics or protestant theologians, or homosexual
activists, or the media, or _your_own_opinion_?  

Uncomfortable, unpopular, or modernistic thought does not good
theology or belief make.   
-- 
\   Bryan D. Boyle            \           _         ______ |
 \  Senior Engineer            \        /   \___-=0`/|0`/__|
  \ Exxon Research & Engineering\_______   N7068W  / | /    )
  / 908 730-3338                /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary... 
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:22:12 GMT

>>>     Thus, in this climate, we need to affirm in the public forum what the
>>>     Church teaches about sexuality and that what the Church teaches is the
>>>     Truth.
>>
>>Some of what the Vatican teaches is the Truth.  Some of it isn't.  What
>>they teach about homosexuality isn't.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And to what do you attribute this startling revelation?  The misinformed
>judgement of ex-catholics or protestant theologians, or homosexual
>activists, or the media, or _your_own_opinion_?  
>

Have you ever considered the possibility of the Spirit 
moving in the hearts of the people?

At one time slavery was commonly accepted as a part of the culture 
of the time.

Later people realized that slavery was an evil, and the Spirit prompted
them to do something about that.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the Spirit
is calling on us to set aside yet another of our prejudices?

Steve Otlowski-


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:37:34 EST
From:         "Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM>
Subject: Re: Celibacy oath
              28-Jan-1993 1044" at Jan 28, 93 8:08 am

>
> >This is why I thought the priest underwent laicizaition.
> >(Someone please correct me if I am wrong.)  After laicization the
> >priest may marry but is not allowed to exercise his Orders.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "laicization".  I don't think that a
> priest can be turned into a layperson; Holy Orders cannot be undone.

Holy Orders can not be undone, correct.  His right to exercise his
orders can be removed by Rome.  Priests seeking to marry "trade" their
right to execise their Orders for the release from their vow of
celibacy by the process of laicization.

>
> Now, a bishop can ordered a priest to cease to exercise his priestly
> functions within a diocese unter that bishop's control, but the priest
> remains a priest.
>
> Another bishop can reauthorize the priest to perform priestly duties.

Only once he has been incardinated into his new (RC) diocese, which requires the
excardination by his old (RC) bishop.


Don
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:55:19 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The tragic tale of a moral theologian.

(Elizabeth: demented humor contained, delete now)

Joel Neisen <joel@MSC.EDU> writes:
>God makes ALL things work for the good of those who are
>called according to His just decree (Rom 8:28)
>What more proof of miracles do we need then ?!
>A suitable praise (only slightly tonque in cheek) for One Bread, One Body
>is, "J.J. has quit smoking for 14 months because of his participation
>in the Free Catholic Mailing List".

Actually, those praises have begun to sound like the 700 Club, so and so's
deadly disease is cured instantly. I'm waiting to hear one that goes "Sarah
had her aborted pregnancy reinstated through prayer".

>(My apologies to mayo@CS.UTK.EDU who blesses us with the One Bread,
>One Body articles)

So I guess it was also God's plan that the node I originally subscribed to
this list on, was put permanently out of service, and therefore prevented
me from unsubscribing. Gee, if it weren't for that, I'd have never posted
my first "Women are unclean" post to Gordon's "period". Aren't we all
blessed:-) -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:19:13 PST
From:         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50" <wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...

    J.J. (URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM) writes:
>So as long as they keep their ACTs between themselves and God, why should
>we show more concern for homosexual acts than we do for heterosexual
>acts performed out of wedlock.

    The Church does not show more concern about the one over the other.
    The Church teaches that either will estrange a soul from God eternally
    if not repented of in this life.  She is equally concerned about both.
    Any one who understands what is at stake, the eternal salvation of
    souls, will also be equally concerned.

    I must be concerned, even when they keep their actions to themselves.
    Because if I, and others, say nothing then those persons who are
    unrepentant in grave sin will spend eternity apart from God.  It is a
    lack of love to say nothing condemnatory knowing what can happen.

>Yes, but let's just be fair about spreading the condemnation:-) -J.J.

    There are persons who think that consenting heterosexual genital
    actions outside of marriage are OK but that equivalent homosexual
    actions are not.

    The teaching authority of the Church, and her supreme pastor, do not
    fall into that category.

                                            In Christ the Savior

                                            Greg Wolff
                                            wolff@ics.enet.dec.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 32 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:57:00 PST
From:         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Why is it?

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:53:34 GMT Ricardo R. Rodriquiz said:
>As near as I can tell (looking at my breviary), in Latin (i.e. Roman
>Catholic) usage, the alleluia at the end of the introductory verse
>"God, come to my assistance..." (used for all hours except the first
>said, which begins with the Invitatory) is said on all days except
>during Lent.  Now, as to the alleluia one finds at the end of the
>antiphons to the psalms and canticles, normally the alleluia is added
>only on Sundays and during Easter.  Hope this helps.

I think Ricardo is correct. Refer to pages 34-37 in the 1976 version of
"Christian Prayer: The Liturgy of the Hours".

By the way, if anyone prays the Liturgy of the Hours on a regular basis and
is concerned about inclusive language there is an excellent resource ("The
New Companion to the Breviary: A Four-Week Psalter featuring All-Inclusive
Language") published by the Carmelites. For more information, write to:

                Psalter
                Carmelite Monastery
                2500 Cold Spring Road
                Indianapolis, IN 46222

Peace and all Good!

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 1993 11:40:39 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: married priests

On Jan 19,  8:33am, "Donald J. Magee" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Married Roman Catholic military chaplains in Canada?
} Since divorce is a civil matter it would not neccessarily have any
} bearing on their priesthood, expect possibly for scandal.  If they
} were to attempt another marriage... that is a different story.  I
} would imagine the same would apply to them as for laity... automatic
} excommunication.
}-- End of excerpt from "Donald J. Magee"

Just a point of correction that divorce and remarriage does not
automatically excommunicate one; it DOES bar you from receiving the
Eucharist since it is a persistent state of sin (adultery).

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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:49:31 PST
From:         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::,
              MSO1-1/J50 25-Jan-1993 1335" <wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      RE: Edward Schileebeecx (sp?) writings & Justification by Faith...

    If you want orthodox Catholic writings, don't read Edward Schileebeecx.
    He is not orthodox at all.  You would be better served by the various
    books published by Ignatius Press (2515 McAllister St., San Francisco,
    CA 94118, USA; call 800-537-0390 and ask for a catalog).

>Can someone provide me some info, please ? I am searching for a source
>on a proof against Justification by Faith and number 1 above is
>important. Any other suggestions on these sources would be well
>appreciated. Thanks.

    One book that I would suggest is Cardinal Ratzinger's "Introduction to
    Christianity."  If you are willing to work HARD on a HEAVY text, the
    two volume work "Mystical Evolution" by Fr. Arintero (translated from
    the Spanish) is a veritable mystical encyclopedia.  Available from TAN
    books.  ["Evolution" of the soul toward God, not that other thing...]

                                            In Christ the Savior

                                            Greg Wolff
                                            wolff@ics.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: The Real Presence
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:14:35 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Catholicism, it seems to me, asserts that nothing is just a metaphor. Any
image, whether of the Madonna in the sanctuary, or of Madonna in a cheezoid
stage act, carries with it more than the list of molecules of which is 
composed.

If one puts the Eucharist under the microscope and weighs it, and scans it,
and comes up with a list of molecules, and asserts: this is all the Eucharist
is, Catholics would say something is left out.

And having said something is left out, I certainly assert the notion
of non-material reality. But we all do so, all the time even with things
less solemn than the Eucharist.

Our very selves have no mass; the corpse of our loved one has the same
list of parts as the living image, but we know the difference is more
than one of mere arrangement.

Quaint notion; but why not dare to be quaint? I'd disagree that science
has had anything interesting to say about the subject at all...
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rrrodrig@psc.lsa.umich.edu (Ricardo R. Rodriquiz)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Why is it?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:53:34 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: malthus.psc.lsa.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Kenneth Bath (bath@dw3f.ess.harris.com) wrote:
: |>
: |>>3.  In the Liturgy of the Hours, is an "(alleluia)" to be excluded during
: |>>Lent, or added during Eastertime?
: |>
: |>If Latin usage is like Anglican usage, this depends on the antiphon.  Some
: |>use alleluia only during Eastertide; some are optional (but really should
: |>be used during Eastertide) except must be omitted during Lent.
: |>

: I still don't understand when the "alleluia" is optional.  For example, the
: Hours are introduced with the doxology, "Glory to the Father and to the
: Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will
: be forever.  (alleluia)".  Is this "alleluia" excluded during Lent, or added
: during Eastertime?  (In other words, do we say the alleluia during
: Ordinary Time or Advent?)  I could cite other examples where the
: "alleluia" is in "( )".

As near as I can tell (looking at my breviary), in Latin (i.e. Roman
Catholic) usage, the alleluia at the end of the introductory verse
"God, come to my assistance..." (used for all hours except the first
said, which begins with the Invitatory) is said on all days except
during Lent.  Now, as to the alleluia one finds at the end of the
antiphons to the psalms and canticles, normally the alleluia is added
only on Sundays and during Easter.  Hope this helps.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:49:19 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Jan 26

                    Tuesday, January 26, 1993
                    Timothy and Titus, Bishops

                II Timothy 1:1-8 or Titus 3:31-35
Psalm 40                                        Mark 3:31-35

                   THE BROTHERHOOD AND SISTERHOOD

"I yearn to see you again.  That would make my happiness complete."
 --II Timothy 1:4

Paul loved Timothy and Titus as brothers in the Lord.  He prayed for them
"constantly, night and day." (II Tm 1:3)  Paul loved Timothy so much that they
both cried when they parted (II Tm 1:4).  When Paul "was under all kinds of
stress," he was strengthened just by "the arrival of Titus." (II Cor 7:5-6)
He so depended on Titus that he did not preach in Troas because he did not
find his brother Titus there (II Cor 2:13).  Paul, Timothy, and Titus loved
one another and their other Christian brothers and sisters so much that they
finally laid down their lives for Jesus and each other (see I Jn 3:16).

The Bible seems to indicate that our baptismal brotherhood and sisterhood is
as deep a relationship as is possible for a human being. It is not necessarily
deeper than the marriage relationship, but it does not seem less deep.
Brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ is not a sexual relationship.  It is
characterized by "absolute purity" (see I Tm 5:2).  It is a miraculous
relationship only made possible by our baptism into Christ.  In baptism, we
can be united with our Christian brothers and sisters, as Jesus and the Father
are united.  Jesus is specifically praying for this (Jn 17:21).  Thus, we as
brothers and sisters in Christ can share in the unity of the Trinity.


Prayer:  Father, give me a divine love for my brothers and sisters through
         baptism.

Promise: "Whoever does the will of God is brother and sister and mother to
          Me."  Mk 3:35

Praise:  By stirring into flame the Holy Spirit, Timothy did not quit his
         work in Ephesus.
-----
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
Return-Path: cms@dragon.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:52:18 EST
From:         "Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter (Cindy Smith)" <cms@DRAGON.COM>
Subject: Re: The Shroud of Turin

>From: Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
>Subject: Shroud of Turin (was: Real Presence)
>
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:31:09 -0500 <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>
>>I'd classify it along with the shroud, as another forgery.
>
>Does anyone know if the Church has officially decided that the Shroud is
>conclusively a forgery?  It seems I read something a while back that several
>scientists have claimed the datings done on the Shroud were in error, and that
>a separate secret dating done at UCLA came up with a much earlier date than
>the official datings.  If I remember correctly, there was speculation that the
>carbon datings were done on a piece of Shroud that was sewed on later to
>repair fire damage.  There was further speculation that oil from human fingers
>may have skewed the datings since the sample of the cloth that was tested
>was along the edge where the cloth was handled.
>     If the Church has decided the Shroud is a forgery, has anyone been able
>to determine how the image on the cloth was made?

 The Shroud was dated as having been created in the Middle Ages, as I
recall.  The image on the cloth is indeed the image of an actual
crucified man.  This is what threw scientists off for so long.  The
conclusion, as I remember it, is that in the Middle Ages a nobleman
had an actual man (perhaps some lowly peasant) whipped and crucified,
and then wrapped in this shroud, which he then passed off as the
burial shroud of Jesus.

>Brent

In Jesus Son of Mary,

Cindy Smith
cms@dragon.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bath@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Kenneth Bath)
Subject: Re:      RE: Why is it?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:40:21 GMT
Reply-To: bath@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Kenneth Bath)
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne  FL

|>
|>>3.  In the Liturgy of the Hours, is an "(alleluia)" to be excluded during
|>>Lent, or added during Eastertime?
|>
|>If Latin usage is like Anglican usage, this depends on the antiphon.  Some
|>use alleluia only during Eastertide; some are optional (but really should
|>be used during Eastertide) except must be omitted during Lent.
|>

I still don't understand when the "alleluia" is optional.  For example, the
Hours are introduced with the doxology, "Glory to the Father and to the
Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will
be forever.  (alleluia)".  Is this "alleluia" excluded during Lent, or added
during Eastertime?  (In other words, do we say the alleluia during
Ordinary Time or Advent?)  I could cite other examples where the
"alleluia" is in "( )".

Again... not an earth shaking problem; I'm just curious about the notation.

Ken Bath
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: monaghan@DCS.GLA.AC.UK (N.O. Monaghan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: directions
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:02:31 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University - Department of Computing Science
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> In article <2B64B1DF@postoffice.ucc.american.edu>,         Jim McIntosh
> <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
> |> What *will*
> |> happen is that more and more people will find the Church is irrelevant in
> |> their lives and they will drift away. Some will go to other churches, but
> |> many will join the great number of unchurched in this country. Ultimately,
> |> unless we can find out how to recapture the excitment of the Gospel message
> |> and make it meaningful to the people of today, the Church will get smaller
> |> and smaller until it will simply disappear.
> With the increased concern with meaning in life, the growth of meditation and
>spiritual growth centers etc., you really think so?  Or is the change, perhaps,
> the loss of "social Christians" for whom the church is heritage not belief?

I wonder if anyone else has noticed that it is perhaps those churches
and seminaries which are doing least to adapt to the modern world (by
that I mean, doing least to change fundamental beliefs, principles,
social outlooks and so on) which are the most flourishing.

Nils.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
N.O. Monaghan

monaghan@dcs.gla.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:28:59 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Receiving Holy Communion

In John's recent post I noticed there is no fasting requirement listed.
Do Anglicans/Episcopalians, then, have no fasting requirement before
reception of Holy Communion?

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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU