HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Not about women priests, it's about changing rules
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:21:23 GMT

collison@scsuc.ctstateu.edu (COLLISON,STEVEN) writes:
>Paul was trying to convey in his letters. There are certain functions that an 
>entity cannot and should not perform precisely because of its nature. Just like 
Exactly.  I think it is this 'nature' business that is the problem.  Is is
masculine or feminine gender that is part of our nature, or our humanity?  I
think gender is an accident of DNA and humanity a gift from God and this is
our 'nature'.  And men and women equally possess that 'nature'.

I think God is genderless.  Yet we are all, men and women, made in 'His'
image and therefore have an aspect, or 'nature', that transcends our physical
presence.  This aspect is the one that decides for or against God, for or
against love.  I think women should have an equal chance within all aspects
of the hierarchical church to express that love.

>not everyone in the Kingdom of God can be prophets or healers or teachers.
  
Ah, but they CAN.  They might not be, but they CAN.  The gifts of the Spirit
are open to all.

>
>Steve

Thanks for you courteous and thoughtful reply, Steve.

In Christ,

Bob

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: topcat@hardy.u.washington.edu (Thanh - Vincent)
Subject: Re: Secrets of Fatima
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:31:07 GMT

In article <BvK7sw.BtC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pol30546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peder Larsen) writes:
>	Has everyone heard about the Korean Pastor in California who
>says the end of the world will start on Oct. 28?  What are your opinions?
>

i say that would be great.  it would sure solve many of my and our current
problems.  all we need is to repent now (we should anyway).

vince
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:11:23 EDT
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Women, priesthood, and Canon Law
              4 Oct 1992 04:33:51 GMT from <rickertj@ATHENA.CAS.VANDERBILT.EDU>

On Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:33:51 GMT (John Rickert) said:
>    And so, for me personally, it seems that the Church _cannot_ revoke
>this without in essence saying that anything goes.  I don't see by
>what possible standard we could say that while ordaining women is a
>dissoluble "nefas," procuring abortion is really, really "nefas."  I
>hope my point is clear.  There is a serious question of language and
>law here which needs to be considered.

Good point, John. I think it helps to remember that our theology has
three equally valid sources: the inspired Word of God given to us in the
Bible; the traditions and writings of the men and women who have come
before us; and the revelations given to us today by the Holy Spirit.
Although one or the other of these may be emphasized at different points
of time, or by different groups, all three are valid sources and need to
be taken seriously.

Of the three, revelation is the most difficult because it is so hard to
authenticate. What is the Holy Spirit saying in this time and place? How
do we know it is the genuine will of God? One way, I think, is to look at
whether it is coming from a cross section of the People of God. Judging
by how often the topic of the ordination of women crops up on this list,
it is clearly something which is troubling the People of God in this time
and this place. They need to be seriously listened to.

I think one source of the problem is that Jesus clearly worked to remove
the distinctions between peoples. Whether the Samaritan woman at the
well, a leper, a madman, a prostitute or a tax collector Jesus embraced
and welcomed all. Rather than building walls between people, Jesus sought
inclusivity.

We are living in a time when, with fits and starts, we are coming to
appreciate the full humanness of all people. We can now read the Gospels
and see time after time when Jesus was already doing what we ourselves
are only starting to do. It is difficult, then, when our Church, which we
dearly love, seems unable to understand our desire to accept and act on
this message from Jesus. It seems to be clinging, not to the words of the
Lord, but rather to the words of other men from the past who had a rather
negative view of women.

I grant you sorting this out will not be an easy task. There are many
difficulties, among them the reasons you mention in your post, but if
this is the prophetic voice of God it needs to be listened to and
respected. One thing we can count on... if this be God speaking, then the
voices will not be stilled and we will hear over and over again the cry
for change.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:12:41 CDT
From:         "(Edward J. Branley)" <elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US>
Subject: Re: kneeling...

"(Steve Creps)" <rex!SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU!creps> writes:

> In article <i39mRB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
> elendil@MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US ((Edward J. Branley)) writes:
> >It's obvious, but you don't get it.  I asked if you're implying that those w
> >prefer to stand at Mass rather than kneel are less in their beliefs?  What
> >"won't work" is for you (or anyone else, for that matter) to make such a
> >judgement.
>
>    But why stand, when to kneel is to be obedient?  I can only assume
> that whoever is disobedient _is_ less in his beliefs as far as
> obedience is concerned, because if one truly knows Christ, then one
> must know that Christ Himself was obedient.  A person who truly knows
> Christ would naturally want to imitate Christ in obedience.  To refuse
> to kneel is to say, "_I_ know what is best; not the Church."  Why
> can't I make a judgment (that one must kneel) that agrees with what
> the Church says, but you _can_ make a judgment (that one need not
> kneel) that _disagrees_ with what the Church says?
>

I may be making a judgement that disagrees with guidlines in the Roman Missal.
I would hardly call that disobedience to the Church.  There is ample precedent
for kneeling and not kneeling, to such an extent that not kneeling can hardly
be considered disobedient or heretical.

Again, I submit that you are out of line here.  You're passing judgement on
things where you have no business doing so (until you're appointed to the
episcopate, that is).  Given that Christ never went to a Mass, how do you know
what He would have done at the consecration?  If you count the Last Supper as a
Mass (which is debatable, since everyone there thought they were at a Passover
meal), then Christ and the apostles were all sitting down for the consecration!

Again, I give you the example of that religious community mentioned earlier.
Is the novice in that community who is not kneeling disobedient?  He doesn't
see it that way.  Neither does the congregation at a church where they haven't
kneeled down in years, if ever.  They see themselves not as knowing what is
best, but as following the examples of their priests and pastor, thereby being
obedient to their Church and God.

To tell me and everyone else who holds a differing view on this issue is to
say, "Steve Creps knows best; not the Church."  Not acceptable.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 17:22:25 PDT
From:         FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Prayer request

> Dear Lord,
> We pray for a successful launch of the Mars Observer.  All things you
> have made, and you have told us that the invisible things of God
> are made known by the visible things you have made.  These people
> hope to understand more of what you have made, using their intellects
> which you have also made and enlighten.  May their work be blessed
> with success, and may they better understand your works.  May they
> also be blessed with eloquence in teaching the rest of us these wonders.
> And in all things may your will be done. In the name of the Father, and
> of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.


      John,

      Thanks for posting this wonderful prayer.

      Frank
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Hello?
Summary: test, basically 
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:04:02 GMT


    Hello!

    I'm just trying to find out whether these are making it out of the
local system here or not.  I just signed up for this about a week ago,
and I've tried a couple of posts.  I guess I thought they might get
some response.

    So far I've found this an enjoyable -- er -- newsgroup.  Some people
who even think the way I do! :-)

    God bless,


John R.						
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 12:14:51 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Bulverism (Was Re: Women are unclean
 <eharbin.717776391@convex.convex.com>

In article <eharbin.717776391@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward
Harbin) says:
>((lines deleted))
>
>Why do the politically correct spend so much energy attributing
>vile thoughts to those who disagree with them? Whose vile thought is it?

((lines deleted))

I think the answer lies in an observation I read some years ago that the
left discovered it could gain great advantages by changing all questions
of fact into questions of motive.

See also the essay "Bulverism" by C. S. Lewis, published in the collection
_ God in the Dock _ (published in Britain under the title _ Undeceptions _).

Marty Helgesen
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: sinead o'connor
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:22:02 GMT

In <MeoOFju_NU00FkJRho@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:

>Do these critics know that the second largest social service agency in
>Massachusetts, besides the government (remember this is a socialist
>state), is the Catholic Church?

Evidently you haven't heard of Digital Equipment Corp. and other non-gov-
ernment entities. :)

>No organization fights harder for human rights, peace, and social change
>than the Catholic Church.  In my opinion, no organization carries the
>light of Christ to the world more effectively than the Catholic Church.

No need to be full of ourselves. For one, the Quakers are among the most
committed denominations to peace, love, understanding, and God. Do what's
right, let others calculate.

Peace

Paul
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:11:49 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: women priests

Steve Collison (collison@SCSUC.CTSTATEU.EDU) writes:

>To be comfortable in accepting a Roman Catholic priestess
>is to be equally comfortable about accepting a _lesbian_ marriage. That's what
>it boils down to - a female "bridegroom" and a female bride. Dream on if the
>Holy Father is going to let that happen.

You must have had to really stretch to come up with this analogy!

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Diaconate
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 02:11:27 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

ASDXMHK@MVS.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU writes:

[much of a very informative post deleted]

>
> There is much more to the office of Deacon that I did not include
> in this post.  If you have specific questions I will be glad to
> respond to them as best I can.
>

Thanks for a very useful article.  I'm curious as to whether you can shed some
light on any age requirements for a permanent deacon.  Gordon said he thought
it was 35.  Is this accurate?  You see, this does matter for those vain souls
like myself who haven't hit that age yet <g>.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Organization: from SUNY College at Buffalo, NY 14222
X-Envelope-to: catholic@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"catholic@auvm"
X-VMS-Cc: PIATKONM
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:56:20 -0400
From:         "Nancy M. Piatkowski" <PIATKONM@SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Subject:      RCIA readings

Len questioned the use ofthe reading about the rich man and Lazarus for the
RCIA  class- the Sunday readings are the basis for each week's
discussion/prayer after the catechumens are dismissed after the proclamantion
of the Word before the Creed - the leaders do not select which scripture
passeages will be used- It is done for them through the cycle of readings in
the lectionary. Some will be harder than others but that is true for all of us.
Nancy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 98yuwono@cua.edu
Subject: Re:      RE: Authority on the Church...
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:42:14 GMT

>>>So, Cardinal Mahoney may listen and respond to our questions on this
>>>listserve, maybe my excommunication papers will arrive afterall:-)
>>>
>>>Anybody know anything about his views, my assumption would be that if he
>>>was appointed to Cardinal, he must have "played the game" rather well and
>>>his views would be rather conservative to allign himself with Rome.
>>>No offense:-) but I can look up Church Dogma in a library, I'd rather
>>>hear what Kim Callis feels about Church.
>>>
>>>Now, where did I put that picture of Cardinal Mahoney? Here it is.
>>>(rip-rip, rip-rip, tear...)
>>>Hey, I heard you can get people to pray for you this way:-) -J.J.
>>>(Note: If you find this offensive, I apologize)
>> 
>>    This is just gratuitous disrespect for a man who has been called by
>> God to be an overseer of your Christian brothers and sisters, and
>> about whom you admittedly know nothing else.  It's even more saddening
>> coming from someone who professes himself to be a Catholic.  I don't
>> take any offense for myself, but for me it just destroys what little
>> credibility you had left regarding the various Church matters that
>> have been discussed here.
>> 
I agreee with steve here, this is just very disrespectful and this is just
one of the most anti catholic statement I have read in this list.
As a member of minority (both as Catholic and chinese) in a moslem  dominated
society, you may think I am used to this kind of statement. (not)


Bigotted statements still hurt nomatter where they came from(left or right)
and maybe center.

Leonardus Yuwono
jesuit Educated and proud of it.
 ==============================================================================
* Leonardus K. Yuwono			   *  "Use it up...
* Internet: 98yuwono@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu   *    Wear it out...
* Bitnet  : 98yuwono@cua.bitnet            *     Make it do...
* UUCP	  : leo@garuda.UUCP  (not Active ) *      Or do without."   
* Jesus is my Postmaster general.(Zippy)   *		 WWII Slogan.
 *********************************AMDG**************************************** 
 

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:45:43 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)

Edward,

As mentioned in the post I made from the Magisterium, there is absolutely no
historical precedent for women priests, and in fact plenty of condemnation of
the idea.  Any time the issue came up, it was roundly condemned as impossible,
heretical.  We cannot reverse ourselves and allow it.

You point out many times where the church has abandoned certain traditions.
You are confusing "tradition" with "Tradition."  There are certain changable
things about what we believe, and certain unchangeable things.  For example,
venacular liturgy has never been a heretical idea.  The Eastern Rite Christians
do not celebrate Mass in Latin, and usually in the vernacular.  Latin liturgy
just happened to become the norm because -- surprise -- Latin was the
vernacular at the time it became standard.

Another example is abstinence from meat on Fridays.  This was merely a matter
of discipline and the church was free to change it, and it did.  Changing it
did not mean that the church was going back on "Tradition" -- the capital T
meaning articles of faith which cannot change.  Rather, it was merely revoking
its human tradition.

Another more controversial example is married priests.  There is nothing to
prevent the Vatican from permitting married priests.  In fact, it has, most
notably in Eastern rites, and also in Episcopalian clergy who convert to
Catholicism. Each the the Church proclaims its view on this, it makes it clear
that this is a matter of discipline, not of divine revelation.  Women priests,
however, is different.  It cannot be done.  It's impossible.  The church is NOT
free to change it, because it is part of Tradition.

So simply because you're receiving communion in the hand now, and reciting the
responses in English, doesn't mean that anything goes and that everything can
change.  Indeed what someone pointed out is very true: We _cannot_ under any
circumstances change our stance on female priests, because we have declared
it quite unquestionably impossible, and even (supposing) we were wrong (which
we cannot be, but for the sake of argument), if we were to change it, it would
totally destroy the fabric of our church and open up to question our most
sacred beliefs.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 09:27:25 EDT
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls; Ecumenism, Tolerance and the Truth
              27 Sep 1992 13:10:21 GMT from <dschenke@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:10:21 GMT (Dennis L Schenkel) said:
>Two recent postings by Steve Otlowski contain common misunderstandings which I
>would like to help clear up...

Well, since we're clearing things up...   :-)

>The American Church has expressly forbidden it and it only occurs in places
>where pastors are ignoring their vow of obedience to their bishops.

Only members of religious orders take VOWS of obedience. Diocesan priests
do not take vows. Most pastors are diocesan priests.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Women, priesthood, and Canon Law
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:33:51 GMT


    Hello again.  While we're on the topic of women priests, I'd like
to raise a question which has been with me for some time.  Please allow
me to state in advance that I do not wish to be or to seem pharisaical
in the usual sense of the word.  So, please, don't be unhappy with me
personally;  I just have concern to raise.

    One thing that bothers me about the possibility of women priests
as proposed by some people is the deep effect it would have on Canon
Law.  Unfortunately, I don't have my text here with me, but it seems
there are two ways of expressing prohibition in the Code.  One is to
say "Non licet."  "It is not permitted."  This term is applied, I 
think, to priests and marriage.  It is not permitted for priests to
marry, but that is a matter of discipline and _could_ be changed.

    On the other hand, there is the much stronger, as I see it,
inexorable prohibition "Nefas est."  "It is unspeakable."  As I
recall, this is used of consecrating hosts outside of Mass, procuring
abortion, or laying violent hands on a cleric.  It is the strongest
possible prohibition.  Well, as you can see my point, "Nefas est"
is applied in the canon which forbids the ordination of women.  (Again,
I don't have my CIC here, but I remember this well.  I think.)

    And so, for me personally, it seems that the Church _cannot_ revoke
this without in essence saying that anything goes.  I don't see by
what possible standard we could say that while ordaining women is a
dissoluble "nefas," procuring abortion is really, really "nefas."  I
hope my point is clear.  There is a serious question of language and
law here which needs to be considered.  

    I welcome replies, of course, but it might be a good idea to
read that first paragraph again.  :-)

    God bless,


John R.					    Praestet fides supplementum
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu	    sensuum defectui.
							-- S. Thomas


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Lay leadership of communion services
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:30:20 GMT

In article <920930120526.28e02e65@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>>We are also attempting to prepare the parish for lay leadership of prayer and
>>communion services without a priest because the day is coming when our
>>diocese will not have enough ordained male celibates to staff all the
>>parishes and the people need to be prepared-
>
>This is an interesting concept. Our parish has recently gone down to one
>priest, however we do have a parishioner who is a deacon. Is there any
>chance that the bishop could delegate his authority to a deacon to celebrate
>the Mass. I suppose there is some rule about transubstantiation only occurring
>with a priest or higher, but can this be modified or waivered under special
>circumstances? Or am I blaspheming again:-) - J.J.

   It is not possible for a deacon to confect the Eucharist, because
he does not have the power to do so.  Not even the Pope can give a
deacon such permission, because it's not a matter of permission, but
rather one of what is possible.  Such a deacon could be ordained a
priest if he is not married.  If he is married, then it would take a
dispensation from celibacy, which is not currently (i.e. this
millenium) given in such a case.

   Perhaps a better way to "be prepared" is to encourage those who may
have, and pray for an increase in, vocations.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic