HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: "ex"-homosexuals
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:57:01 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel) writes:
>Andrew Werling writes:
>(Stuff deleted)
>"Sure you can stop the action, but I don't believe that you can convert
>your own inner core away from its inner nature/urges."
>
>What you say may be true, but it is irrelevant.  The Church has never said that
>to have homosexual urges is sinful.  A person cannot choose his or her urges.  
>Sin is an act of free will.  Just as it is not sinful to be an alcoholic or a 
>recovering alcoholic, yet sinful to abuse alcohol, so to is it not sinful to be
>a homosexual while it is sinful to perform homosexual acts.
>
>If a person can come to terms with his or her urges, and submits his or her 
>life to Jesus as an offering, under whatever terms, and thereby chooses not to 
>commit homosexual acts, there is no sin.  This is why (IMHO) the Church speaks 
>of homosexuality as an illlness, in the same way that alcoholism is termed an 
>illness.

   IMHO, the Church is wrongheaded to label alcoholism an illness.  An
illness is something that presumably can be treated and cured, and, as
everyone knows, there is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic.  Therefore,
their "urge" for alcohol consumption, and their alcohol-consuming behavior
are maladaptive behaviors, as they cause harm to the alcoholic and those
around him or her.

   Similarly, homosexuality cannot be "cured," and is therefore not a
disease.  And the behaviors that "usually" are desctructive to
homosexuals, such as excessive sexual promiscuity, are usually just as
destructive for heterosexuals, therefore these destructive behaviors are
not uniquely homosexual in character. 

>I have a lot of respect for them men of Exodus.  I hope that I may someday come
>to terms with my own urges to overeat.  We shall see. :)

   Say, Dennis, isn't Gluttony one of the (infamous) Seven Deadly Sins?  I
mean, non-vanilla sex is just a mere mortal sin. . .  :)

-- 
  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.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Public worship (was Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:29:15 GMT

In article <9211181830.AA03795@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Michael I Bushnell <mib@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU> writes:
>Haig Kasab made some statements about the separation of church and
>state, which went considerably father than the actual court
>precedents.  Steve Creps now wants to give up on the ACLU because they
>(supposedly) support the sort of things Kasab talked about.  Those
>things are not illegal, and the ACLU doesn't oppose them.

   Actually, I wasn't arguing against the ACLU, but rather Haig's
comments.  My remark on the ACLU was more an aside, because Haig had
mentioned them.  For the record, I do believe the ACLU is
hypocritical, but do not wish to discuss it here, as it is not in the
charter of this list.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Priest shortage
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:31:38 GMT

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> ...  Of course, when there are no
>more priests in this country, maybe things will come to a head.

Of course women priests isn't the only hope for overcoming the priest
shortage.  In addition to the hope for increased celibate male vocations
that has been mentioned, we have not discussed the married clergy as a
possible solution.

We have married Roman Catholic priests now, so this seems like a much
more acceptable solution since the 'valid' is not in question, and 'licit'
would just take a stroke of the proverbial pen.  It is already licit in
some cases, specifically those who have 'transferred in' from other rites
or from the Episcopal church.  And scripture arguments are also strong in
that the Apostles were married, weren't they?  Or does that mean that only
bishops can be married? :-)

BTW, since Episcopal orders are valid, but illicit per Rome, I would be
interested in seeing a definitive statement from Rome that declares
female Episcopal orders invalid.  Without that I would not be able to
accept the 'invalid material' argument.  

OR - maybe this isn't really a problem, but the work of the Holy Spirit 
telling us we all must be better ministers to our brothers and sisters and
stop relying on priests to be doing what we should be doing ourselves!

Bob

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Priest shortage...
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:37:35 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

> Ed, at the present time it is my understanding that there are NO
> seminarians in the pipeline from the state of HI.  And there is
> already a shortage here, too.  I have no problem at all believing what
> the TIME article said.
>
> Shalom,                           Len Howard OSL
>                                   tas@pegasus.com

Len, what is the predominant religion in the state of HI?  I've never really
thought about this before, but now I'm curious.  Given the influx of Japanese,
other Asians, and the large native population, somehow it doesn't seem
surprising that there's a lack of Catholic seminarians there...



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: tas@PEGASUS.COM (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:09:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
              priests" (Nov 14,  1:24am)

John, I am slightly confused by your answers regarding women in the
priesthood.  You at one point say that all the apostles are dead, so
there can be no more revelation, and in another point say we are to be
guided by the Holy Spirit.
    If you will remember the prophets, they were people who were
telling their society, kings and church the word of God as they had
been given it.  Most times the recipient of the message did not want
to hear it or was made very uncomfortable by hearing it.
    Is it not possible that the feminine theology movement is a
prophetic one, and represents the action of the Holy Spirit.  I
believe the Holy Spirit works in the Laos as well as the Clergy, and
IF the time ever came that 98% of the laity accepted the idea of women
priests, I submit that may well be the prophetic word of God being
spoken.
    There is a striking parallel in the juxtaposition of Jesus as the
Pharasees in the first century, and the feminine theologians and the
Majestirium in the end of the twentieth century.
    In order to receive the Word of God, one must listen with the ears
of faith, not keep ones mind closed to other possibilities.  If your
mind is closed you will never discern the Word of God as presented in
the twentieth century.
    Of course, if one believes that all revelation stopped in 96 AD,
then obviously there will be no women priests, and we will not have
the bible as it is, nor the Creed, nor the Trinity, nor the Bishop of
Rome.  Let's see, the present Bishop of Jerusalem is.........????

Shalom, John                          Len Howard OSL
                                      tas@pegasus.com
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:35:39 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <BxxHuK.39L@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

:  Is the sex of the person being ordained a big T or little t
:  tradition and what difference does it make to our salvation? 

>   It's a "big T."  The difference it makes to our salvation is that
>if, as the Church teaches, women really cannot be validly ordained,
>then any priestly sacraments they would attempt to minister would be
>invalid.  If you still say to this what difference does it make, then
>that is the same as saying that the priesthood is of no avail, that we
>might as well discard it.

Circular argument. "Women can't be validly ordained because if they were it
would be invalid."

>   You speak of God guiding the hearts of the Church and its people.
>But you _assume_ that He is not doing a good job of guiding those to
>whom He has entrusted His authority, and that rather _some_ of the
>laity have the Real Truth(tm).  That's nothing more than wishful
>thinking.

Not "assume": allow the possibility.
Not "that he is not doing a good job": that those who respond to his
 guidance do so imperfectly, as men and women in a fallen world.
Not "Real Truth(tm)": truth.
Not "wishful thinking": a properly informed understanding of the way
 the Church has always carried out its mission.

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: nmonagha@nyx.cs.du.edu (N.O. Monaghan)
Subject: New newsgroup alt.revolution.counter
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 07:43:19 GMT


The new newsgroup alt.revolution.counter may be of interest
to some readers of this newsgroup.

The new newsgroup alt.revolution.counter will cover
the culture, philosophy and politics of what may be
termed the Counter-Revolution. Amonst other matters
it will deal with:

        monarchism
        distributism
        integrism
        corporatism
        subsidarity

Regularly updated articles containing journal subscription details,
the contact addresses of various organizations and other useful
information will be posted. An archive will be created in which
selected postings (e.g. book reviews) can be saved.

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:38:16 GMT

      Allow me to comment on the Physics. (I am a
theoretical particle physicist.) From the standpoint
of relativity there is no absolute meaning to the
notion of being 'at rest' versus being 'in uniform
motion'. So, in that sense, one could say that the
frame of the earth is as good an inertial frame as
that of the sun. So one could argue that it is just
as true to say that the sun goes round the earth as 
vice versa. I believe that the Inquisition stated that
the earth was in the center of the universe and does
not move, and not merely that the sun was not in 
the center and motionless. If they had confined
themselves to denying the latter proposition one
could not call them wrong. However, they also asserted
the former. There is no sense in which the earth is
the physical center of the universe. Moreover, the
rotation of the earth on its axis is, in special and
general relativity, an absolute fact. (We can ignore
certain Machian ideas on rotation as being relative
to the matter in the universe, the 'fixed stars'.)
So Galileo in asserting this rotation was right and
the Inquisition in denying it was wrong: absolutely.
Finally, there are significant senses in which one
is more right in saying that the earth goes around
the sun than vice versa, even in the context of
relativity. From the viewpoint of a distant observer,
one can talk about a frame of reference in which the 
whole solar system is at rest. In such a frame the
motion of the earth is much larger than that of the
sun. Moreover, one can also talk about the frame of
the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is
a sort of preferred frame. With respect to that one
can talk about the motion of the earth around the sun:
indeed COBE has seen it! That is, the 3K radiation 
has a periodic redshift (blueshift) with period of
one year as seen from earth, corresponding to the
earth's motion around the sun. 
     So from many points of view, the Inquisition
was more wrong than Galileo, though the heliocentric
theory of that time was inevitably a little naive.
     The Inquisition blundered. In my view the
question is 'so what'? That is what conclusions do
you draw from that. The usual conclusion is that the
Church is by its nature opposed to empirical science.
This is just wrong. It never was true, not even then. 
The real lesson, in my view, is that the Church has
to be careful in interpreting scripture, that a less
naive view of scriptural innerancy than prevailed then 
is required, and that people (even churchmen) should
not pronounce judgment on matters they insufficiently
understand. I think the Church learned well from the
Galileo case. Can any comparable instance be cited since
then? No.             Steve Barr.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel)
Subject: Re: "ex"-homosexuals
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:07:34 GMT

(excerpt from MY previous post)

>If a person can come to terms with his or her urges, and submits his or her
>life to Jesus as an offering, under whatever terms, and thereby chooses not to
>commit homosexual acts, there is no sin.  This is why (IMHO) the Church speaks
>of homosexuality as an illlness, in the same way that alcoholism is termed an
>illness.

(excerpt from Haid Kasab's post)

  "IMHO, the Church is wrongheaded to label alcoholism an illness.  An
illness is something that presumably can be treated and cured, and, as
everyone knows, there is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic.  Therefore,
their "urge" for alcohol consumption, and their alcohol-consuming behavior
are maladaptive behaviors, as they cause harm to the alcoholic and those
around him or her.

[me: OH REALLY?  SINCE WHEN HAS THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY DECIDED THAT ALCOHOLISM
IS NOT A DISEASE?  I WILL GRANT THAT THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY DOES NOT CONSIDER
HOMOSEXUALITY TO BE A DISEASE, BUT I WAS MERELY EXTENDING AN ANALOGY THAT I
THINK WORKS.  HOMOSEXUALITY IS *LIKE* ALCOHOLISM IN THAT TO MERELY HAVE URGES
IS NOT SINFUL. (end me)]

(continue excerpt from Haid Kasab's post)

  "Similarly, homosexuality cannot be "cured," and is therefore not a
disease.  And the behaviors that "usually" are desctructive to
homosexuals, such as excessive sexual promiscuity, are usually just as
destructive for heterosexuals, therefore these destructive behaviors are
not uniquely homosexual in character.

(excerpt from my previous post)

>I have a lot of respect for them men of Exodus. I hope that I may someday come
>to terms with my own urges to overeat.  We shall see. :)

(excerpt from Haid Kasab's post)

  "Say, Dennis, isn't Gluttony one of the (infamous) Seven Deadly Sins?  I
mean, non-vanilla sex is just a mere mortal sin. . .  :)

[me: NO KIDDING. WHY DO YOU THINK I MENTIONED IT. I AM A SINNER. SO IS EVERYONE
ELSE.  I MENTION IT IN ORDER TO PUT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS INTO THEIR PROPER 
PERSPECTIVE AS ONE OF A GREAT NUMBER OF SINS THAT ANYONE MAY HAVE TO CONFRONT 
IN THEIR LIVES. MY SIN IS TO OVER-EAT. I PRAY GOD DELIVER ME FROM IT, AND THAT
MY SUFFERING MAY BE REDEMPTIVE IN SOME WAY. (end me)]
-- 
Dennis Schenkel, Graduate Student    *****************************************
Ohio State University, English Dept  * Pax Christi Vobiscum...  from one of  *
dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   * those who "...wait in joyful hope..." *
    --My opinions are mine--         *****************************************
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Nature of List
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:35:00 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia) writes:
>Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>>The
>>answer to the inability of religion to address the needs of the people is
>>not to return to a church which was once valuable but is no longer, but
>>rather to continue to change the church to make it current and meaningful
>>to the people. [...]  Unless it speaks its message in terms people can 
>>understand, they will see the church as irrelevant.
>
>I do not think that the church should change its positions to adapt to
>its people, especially the RC church. I think the problem today, and
>I would like to work on this, is that the church bring out its teachings
>more publicly to answer current moral dilemmas. 

More importantly, I do not think the Church _would_ change its positions to
adapt to its people.  As someone else has bluntly pointed out in this group,
"The Church is not a democracy."  So, the leadership is under no obligation
to heed its members.  Also, there are several examples of the Church using
its teachings to publicly answer current moral dilemmas.  One of the more
prominent messengers is Cardinal John O'Connor of New York City.

>>The church's position with regards to women is driving people away. Would
>>you rather have no church, or one where women are treated as equals? If
>
>Considering that only the RC church(with the Orthodox) attribute great-
>ness to the Blessed Virgin as greatest among the saints and no other
>churches do, I find this statement to be quite erroneous.

The RC and Orthodox Churches almost idolize Mary to the point where she is
almost as important as her son.  From this idolization, there comes an
attitude that women are mysterious, wonderful creatures that are not like us
menfolk.  Also, since other Christian sects don't really subscribe to the
notion of saints in the first place (certainly not in the same way that the
RC does), your comparison is a little weak.  Moreover, many Protestant sects
seem to be treating women more equally, since they can hold any position
that a man does in the structure of these other churches.

>>If we want those pews to be full again, if we want Jesus's message to be
>>carried to the world, if the church is to be meaningful to the world of
>>today, some changes are going to have to be made.
>
>I think, changes only in the matter of making the churches' voice be 
>heard even louder or that the church even be bold enough to speak in
>this day and age. Of course, there will always be growth in faith.

If the message of Christ as delivered by the Catholic Church is failing
to inspire and convert people, then is the fault with the message, the
messenger, or the people?

-- 
  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: FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU (frank lopez)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:25:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).

> This is as it should be.  No matter what public prayer one allows in school,
 it
> is bound to be at odds with someone's understanding of God.

     This statement might be fine if the ACLU was actually trying
     promote any understanding of God, but they are not.  Their
     concern is not with promoting any forms of worship, but with
     keeping them from happening, regardless if the worship happens
     in a public park or on the front lawns of city hall, and
     whether they are done by Jews, Christians or Druids, period.


> Besides no public prayer *doesn't prohibit paryer!*

     Tell that to the handful of high school kids that tried to have a
     prayer service, amongst themsleves, before school began and were
     forcibly removed from the school by armed guards at the command
     of the school principal.  (don't ask me where.  I read it
in our     local diocean newspaper.)


> You can say all the prayers you want at any time you want and no one
> can stop you because there are no thought monitors.  The ACLU isn't stopping
> prayer, it is stopping specific prayers and stopping the offering of *one
> group's* idea at the expense of another of what is acceptable to God.

     Again, tell it high schoolers or the folks who aren't allowed to
     rent a conference room to have a prayer/Bible meeting in
     public libraries, but, who will allow the followers of an
     ancient Egyptian cult and the Communist Party of America have
     meetings there.  (This happened in a library I used to work in.)

> Besides, didn't the Good Shepherd leave the 99 to go search for the 1?  How do
> you think the 99 felt when they perceived him to be "abandoning" them?  They
> were wrong, weren't they?

     Who is the Good Shepard here?  The ACLU?  I don't get you're
     analogy!

     We here have a right to worship publicly by the constitution.
     The ACLU reads "freedom of religion" as "freedom from religion."
     It is as easy for someone NOT to pray, NOT to worship, compared
     to trying to tear down all that was built by those who do
     believe in God, or a god, or whatever.

     The ACLU is not a sympathetic group.  They don't care what the
     majority wants.  They don't even care what the minority want!
     They only care about the agenda of the ACLU and that is to
     ultimately cause problems in the smallest of burgs to the
     grandest of cities and to anger people from those who simply
     want to worship their Lord in really very humble ways to
     the Jewish man who would rather have Nazi's remain under the
     rocks they crawled out from under, than watch them parade in the
     streets of his city.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic