HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:53:09 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Dec16.210403.20628@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
>>Or how about a drunk driver who smashes into a car driven by a
>>pregnant person, the baby is killed but the mom is okay.  I have read
>>about cases like this where the drunk is charge with manslaughter for
>>killing the baby.
>>
>This is a good example of situational ethics-where an amorphous "right"
>such as abortion is based on one consideration of the foetus, and the
>other where if you harm the foetus through an act not intended to
>directly cause its abortion, it is manslaughter.  What a corrupt
>way of looking at life.

   How right you are!  The only difference I see in this is whether or
not the mother wants the baby killed.  If this is in fact a true
situation, it reduces the baby to merely the "property" of the mother.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
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:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:47:02 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Asylum

On Dec 15,  7:38am, Richard A Chonak wrote:
} Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
}
} A few days ago, Fr Tom Carleton was sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment,
} with 2 years suspended.  Since he will not promise to stop protecting unborn
} children, he is likely to serve the whole sentence.  A fellow defendant (a
} layman whose name I forget), was acquitted.

Richard, do you have an address where we can write to him in jail?

}
} Fr Hagerty, SJ, was not on trial in this proceeding.
}
} The defendants were not allowed to use the "necessity" defense: that is, to
} say that they blocked the abortion facility to prevent an imminent loss of
} life.

        Usual tactic.
}
} The defense was also not allowed to inform the jury of its right ("jury
} nullification") to judge the law as well as the facts, and to acquit the
} defendant if they should find the law to be unjust.  The judge, in her
} instructions to the jury, specifically said that *she* ruled on questions of
} law, and the jury only on questions of fact.

        This, too, is common.  As a matter of fact, if one of the jurors
was aware of jury nullification, he would almost certainly not be allowed
to serve.



--
* 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.
From: EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU (Liz Moreau)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Queens school board
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:03:08 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.1-10, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A

>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.

I can see your point and I know I would get riled up too.  But on the
other side of the coin, many people who send their children to
Catholic school are not really practicing their faith or any faith.
They send them because of the education or discipline.  May be this
are the people they were trying to reach.

                                        Liz Moreau
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 92 23:24:00 CST
Organization: Seashell Software

"John R. Covert 15-Dec-1992 1237" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

> >Again, if this is the case, why is it forbidden to try to change the system
> >from within as well as without?  I certainly don't argue the right/duty of
> >civil disobedience, but a Church that teaches that we have an obligation to
> >tear down an unacceptable system from without, but will not permit change fr
> >within is a bit hypocritical, IMHO.
>
> That's not the case at all.  The Church is not just its ordained priesthood.
> Laity are also ministers of the Church -- and they certainly are able to be
> elected to public office.
>
> Certainly protest and civil disobedience is "within the system" as well.
>
> /john

You're changing the focus here by shifting away from the priesthood.  That's
where the prohibition is and where the hypocrisy is.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:32:34 EST
From:         Rob Spataro <SPATAROR@SJUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Gospel Messages

Hi all,

    Overheard a couple of people talking about the "future orientation of the
Gospel message".  I'm not really sure what they meant.  Can anyone help me out
here?
    If so, please e-mail me your response directly for I am not a list sub-
scriber, but figured if anyone would know, it would be you.
    Thanks.

Merry Christmas;  Happy New Year,

Rob Spataro
<spataror@SJUVM>
<spataror@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:35:10 CST
From: <U14663@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: More on Infallibility

In article <199212071811.AA04089@caritas.cotdazr.org>, "Gordon C. Zaft"
<zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> says:
>
>On Dec 5,  3:18am, noao!U14663@UICVM.UIC.EDU wrote:
>} Subject: More on Infallibility
>} (the following is the quote from Kung)
>}   Almost 600 rears later, in 1870, Pius IX tightened the lid on
>} papal primacy by getting his definition of papal infallibility
>
>        Somehow, I don't think that's QUITE what Kung said, but
>it IS one of the funnier typos I've seen in the mailing list to date.
I have to agree that that is one of the funnier typos I'VE seen also.
And I thought I proof read that.  There were other typos as well.  I
guess I shouldn't do this so late at night, or is it early in the
morning! 8-)
And you're right, that isn't what Kung said.  Perhaps you missed the end
of the quote.  If you still have a copy of my original note the
following was the last three lines of that quoted section:
>establish in a highly practical way with the aid of papal
>synods, papal legates and the mendicant orders. . . .  (this
>ends the quote)
There is then another paragraph before the one you cited beginning
with
>  Almost 600 rears later, in 1870, Pius IX tightened the lid on
Peace
Dick
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:11:59 GMT

In article <9212130156.AA13661@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> "John R. Covert 12-Dec-1992
2010" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:
>
>Thus, Brian, you can see that it is a difficult pastoral situation for a
>priest who is asked to perform a _public_ baptism at a regular Sunday Mass,
>of a child of parents who _might_appear_to_other_members_of_the_congregation_
>to be merely giving lip service to these most important of Christian promises.
True.
>
>
>I would not really expect a priest to be able to go further than to offer a
>private baptism, and for a Roman Catholic priest, even that is done at some
>risk of discipline from his bishop.
This is not accurate. I even asked a Roman Catholic priest about it. What is 
the basis for such a claim? The rest of Mr. Covert's analysis seems pastorally 
prudent.
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:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:30:18 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Asylum

On Dec 13,  3:56pm, "John R. Covert 13-Dec-1992 1853" wrote:
} Subject: Asylum (sanctuary)
} Is it time for the Church to revive the practice of granting sanctuary?
}
} This past week, a priest was convicted in a case involving the blockade
} of an abortion clinic.  Sentencing will occur in a few weeks, and if past
} cases are any guide, he will be given a very long sentence, of at least
} several years.
}-- End of excerpt from "John R. Covert 13-Dec-1992 1853"

Well, having participated in a rescue myself (though I didn't risk
arrest) I don't think so.  I think it is better to go to jail... why?
Because only by that means will others see the evil we are fighting.

Granting asylum would make more sense if we were doing a better job
of education on the Catholic population.  On the other hand, if we
were doing that job, we wouldn't have abortion in this country.  As
has been pointed out, if 25 million (or even 10 million) Catholics went
out and stood in front of the abortion mills and said "we will not stand
for this!" it would stop.

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.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Vatican & current European trends--ques
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:15:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.212555.45592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
 writes:
>A friend of mine who has been living in Germany for the past eight
>years remarked that the Vatican will have a new (and better) status
>internationally as a result of the EEC and of general current trends
>in Europe.
>
>Can anyone enlighten me/us on the details of this?
I'm not sure what "new and better status" means, but the Vatican is not a 
member state of the EEC, at any rate.
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 22:18:45 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: "One Bread, One Body", Dec 13

Ummmm, just for accuracy, this is the _3rd_ Sunday in Advent.  And I
sure like the patience reading.  Applies to a whole lot of
contemporary situations.

Shalom,                                       Len
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:45:23 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
              Activity (was Re: Asylum)" (Dec 18,  9:18pm)

Hi John,  Yes, I can do the same thing here that I have done on
talk.abortion for as long as I have been on interNet, clear up medical
questions.

Depending on lactation as a method of contraception is not effective
because _occasionally_ and _eventually_ the prolactin level will
decrease to the point where ovulation is not inhibited and the woman
will again be fertile.  Teleologically, of course, a woman should
never have a menstrual period.  She should be active sexually from
puberty onward, get preganant with first ovulation, nurse the baby as
long as possible, then get pregnant again the first time she ovulates
after delivery.  After the 10th baby or so she will die of a
postpartum hemorrhage, and all without ever having a menstrual period.
<grin> [for the humorously exceptional]
[The first 3.4 lines are fact, the rest fancy]

I watch with dismay the intrusion of the abortion issue into this
otherwise interesting discussion group.  As we see already, the
abortion debate deteriorates into discussion of who said what, and
what did they mean by that, inclusion of medical fact [or fiction] to
prove or disprove a point, and zealotry on both sides.

I have been involved in the abortion issue since before RvW, and have
heard the same rhetoric by well meaning zealots for about 20 years
now.  PLEASE, PLEASE, if you wish to debate this particular issue,
take your debate to talk.abortion where you will be joyously received
as 'new blood' and find all the debate you can handle.  Before I
un-subscribed to the t.a group, I was reviewing 3-400 posts per day on
the topic.  And you think the volume in this mail group is heavy now.
Just wait until all the abortoholics get wind of a new arena to play
in.  We might as well close this mail group up.

Shalom,                            Len Howard MD
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:22:13 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)

Steve Creps <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> writes:
>   If I may ask, under what species should they be classified?

Whichever you want, Steve:-), my point was that because they were the
subject of protective legislation, that by itself did not make them
"legal" persons.

>   Question: what is the difference between a baby born normally at
>nine months, and one who, due to some emergency, must be delivered at
>n months by Caesarian section?

Based on my own personal experience:
1) daughter delivered by C-section at 9&1/2 months: wt. 9 lb. 6 oz.
   counts as a child to my wife and I,
2) son delivered by C-section at 9&1/4 months: wt. 8 lb. 5 oz.
   counts as a child to my wife and I,
3) daughter delivered by C-section at 7&1/2 months: wt. 5 lb. 8 oz.
   counts as a child to my wife and I,
4) "unknown" delivered "normally" at 1&1/2 months: size of fingernail
   Not counted as a child to my wife and I,

Hope this helps:-)

> Question 2: how do we know what n is?

The recent "48 Hours" show seemed to indicate that modern technology
has brought this "n" for survival down to 23-25 weeks. - J.J.
From: JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Queens school board
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:18:49 GMT
Organization: The American University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              15 Dec 1992 23:39:46 -0500 from <esler@APOLLO.HP.COM>

On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:39:46 -0500 Kevin Esler said:
>Personally, I believe it is unjust that a person who wishes to educate
>his children at a Catholic school, gets none of his tax dollars
>directed toward that education.

But that's not the purpose of the tax, is it? It's not intended as a
tuition payment towards your children's education, but is instead a tax
to support the running of a public education system. That's the reason
singles and older married couples are not exempt from the tax. If you do
not wish to take advantage of the public education system, and can afford
private schooling, you are welcome to do so, but that does not lessen
requirement of the society to provide some base line of education.

If enough people select private schooling, then the tax _on everyone_ can
be lowered since the burden on society is lessened. If enough people
decide they cannot afford private schooling, then the tax (again on
everyone) will have to be raised. The tax is for the purpose of running
a public education system -- not for the purpose of educating one
particular person's children.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:36:36 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      Re: "One Bread, One Body", Dec 13

Thanks -- that's what I get for being behind and up so late.  I am still in
the *first* week as far as getting ready for Christ's birthday :-) .

Wallace
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: 6 Dec 92 13:09:28 GMT
Organization: Seashell Software

Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:

> On Sat, 5 Dec 1992 16:50:44 CST Edward J. Branley said:
> >To Steve Barr:  Based on John's recounting of this event, it looks like the
> >Church in Boston is very much participating in political activity.  Granted
> >cause is good *this time*, but a prohibition should be a prohibition, lest t
> >Church be viewed as hypocritical.
>
> The prohibition is against priests running for office, not against the
> Church participating in the political process. The Church has every right
> and in fact, I would propose, a duty to preach the Gospel. In fact, all
> Christians have this duty. To be, in need be, a voice calling in the
> wilderness.
>
> Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
> The American University
> Washington DC 20016-8019 USA

Which is precisely why the prohibition against clergy running for office is
contradictory, IMHO.  If a priest can practice civil disobedience, it seems
reasonable that the same heirarchy would encourage priests to work *within* the
system to change it.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Moral Activity
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:59:40 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)

On Dec 15,  6:07pm, Martha Smith wrote:
} Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
}
} One can be anti-abortion and still believe that political laws are not the way
} to enforce moral law.  The goal is to stop abortion; changing the law will not
} stop it - that we know from previous experience.  One needs to work for a
 moral
} climate in which children are valued, the community (family) interests have
} greater weigh than individual interests, where emotional/financial/social
} support is given to those raising children regardless of the circumstances of
} the child's birth ... Abortion will stop only
}
}
}  when the factors leading a woman to choose abortion are changed.  One cannot
} successfully legislate values; one can only legislate an environment that
} encourages those values (for example the anti-discrimination laws).
}-- End of excerpt from Martha Smith

On the contrary, morals are all you CAN legislate.  If we all were
perfectly moral, we wouldn't need laws, would we?  While I agree that
we need to work on the root causes why women seek abortion, nevertheless
we must also make it illegal.

        After all, would you advocate repealing the laws against theft
and 'working for an environment where people don't steal'?  I doubt it.
The fact is that making abortion illegal will stop a large number of
abortions from happening.  Murder is illegal, yet murders happen
all the time -- despite the fact that we are unable to stop murders
from happening, we do not give up and repeal our laws.

GZ
d

--
* 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.
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:35:32 GMT
Organization: Seashell Software

"John R. Covert 17-Dec-1992 1003" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

> 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

John, given that the Pope can make ex cathedra pronouncements, I don't see how
his primacy can be defined in terms of collegiality.  He's not merely first
among equals; he's a primate who is able to make infallible statements.  It's
hard to imagine the other two branches accepting any definition of the Pope's
primacy that retains the concept of infallibility.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Myth exposed!!!
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:49:19 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


    What makes intelligent conversation so difficult with
you, J.J., is that it is hard to tell when you are being
serious. Surely you are joking here, when you ask whether
for Pope Gregory XVI to have denounced railways as hellish
inventions he was "condemning" them. As you must know, 
this myth arose in a discussion of the Pope's teaching
authority in matters of doctrine. Martin used this typical
liberal pseudo-fact as an argument against the reliability
of the Papal magisterium. (I don't accuse Martin of having
invented this piece of silliness, but of having too much
trust in things written by liberals, by which he was un-
doubtedly deceived.) 
    The only thing relevant, therefore, to this discussion
is whether any Pope had "taught" that railways or gas light
were sinful, that is, whether he "condemned" these things
in a doctrinal sense. If the Pope had denounced brockely
or expressed his dislike of modern art, that is not a
"teaching". Is it really possible that you don't understand these
things? You are an educated man. Are you affecting simplicity
to be amusing? I am not trying to be insulting, I assure you.
You obviously have passionate convictions, and suffer deeply
because of what you regard as wrongs in the Church. But
you cloak you seriousness in so much flippancy that we
mistake your arguments for jokes and your jokes for arguments!
                           Steve.
By the way, though I like brockely, I don't know how to
spell it. That puts me in the same catagory with V.P. Quayle,
which I regard as "a badge of honor". Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU