HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:21:52 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 19-Nov-1992 0023" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Anglican Religious Orders in the U.S. (for archive)

Anglican Religious Orders and Other Christian Communities active in the
United States

* indicates those officially recognized by The Standing Committee on Religious
Orders of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) in
accordance with Canon III.28.  Not all are in community.  Not all are celibate.

For Men:

* Congregation of the Companions of the Holy Saviour
  Oratory of the Good Shepherd
* Order of the Holy Cross
  Society of the Holy Cross (S.S.C.), Priests and Bishops only
  Order of the Holy Family
* Order of St. Benedict
* Society of St. Francis
* Brotherhood of St. Gregory
* Society of St. John the Evangelist
* Society of St. Paul
  Servants of Christ
  The Community of the Servants of Jesus
  The Worker Brothers of the Holy Spirit

For Men & Women:

  Order of Agape and Reconciliation
* Order of Holy Redeemer
  Life in Jesus Community
  Company of the Paraclete
* Third Order of St. Francis
  Community of Servants of Christ the King
  The Order of the Servants of Christ the King
  Transfiguration Retreat Monastery, Antonian Monks (OM)

For Women:

* All Saints Sisters of the Poor
  Sisterhood of the Holy Nativity
* Community of the Holy Spirit
  Poor Clares of Reparation
* Order of St. Anne
  Saint Benedict's House
* Community of St. Francis
* Order of Saint Helena
* Community of Saint John the Baptist
* Society of St. Margaret
* Community of St. Mary
  Saint Vincent de Paul, Sisters of Charity
* Teachers of the Children of God
  Community of the Transfiguration
  Community of the Way of the Cross
* The Worker Sisters of the Holy Spirit
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      RE: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:25:16 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <Pine.3.03.9211181239.C9074-a100000@dante>,         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1992, Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425 wrote:
> 
> > Brent writes:
> >
> > >Does society, and do we as Christians, have an interest and
> > >possibly a moral obligation to convey basic values to the many children of
> > >irresponsible parents?

There are a number of basic values that are also civic values that we do have an obligation to convey - respect for property, respect for proper authority, and respect for our fellow humans (regardless of ethnicity, occupation, social status, religious conviction, sexual orientation ...) But even patriotism can be a mine-field for those with moral objections to "legalized mass murder i.e. war".  Hence, we must give very serious consideration to what moral values have social/civic ramifications and are suff









iciently significant to society to not permit individual deviation (e.g. theft is theft and not permitted by society; adultery is wrong but is tolerated by society as a matter of interpersonal morality not societal morality.
> >
> > Hmm...  Good question.  I'll have to chew on it for a while.
> 
> I somehow missed this remark, so I'll reply now...
> 
> If to you "basic values" means anti-gay, then if I ever adopt kids, you
> better stay the you-know-what away from them.
> 
> Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
> "The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable
>         uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."
>                 --Faxe, in THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, by Ursula K. Le Guin
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.catholic:2769 talk.religion.misc:21901
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:30:24 GMT

In article <6086@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:
>In article <BxxHuK.39L@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>>   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."

This is not a circular argument.  In order for it to be a cicular argument, 
"invalid" would have to be predicated of the same subject in the statements.
But clearly, it is not being predicated of the same subject in the original
posting.  The first predication is applied to the ordination of a person,
the second predication is applied to the actions that such a person would
engage in after an ordination.  Since "invalid" is not predicated of the
same subject, it cannot constitute a circular argument as you assert.>

>>   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.

The Good News of Jesus Christ does not tell us what it is possible for
God to do, but what God is doing.

Peace,
John
From: mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 21
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:06:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


                    Saturday, November 21, 1992
                       Presentation of Mary

Revelation 11:4-12          Psalm 144                   Luke 20:27-40

                            I + U = 2

"I will commission My two witnesses." --Revelations 11:3

Today is the patronal feastday of Presentation Ministries [who publish "One
Bread, One Body].  Like the two witnesses in today's reading from Revelation,
we at Presentation Ministries are trying by the anointing of the Holy Spirit
to be trees of life and lampstands of light (see Rv 11:4).  In the midst of
persecution, the Lord in His mercy has given us power and victory.  But like
Jesus and the two witnesses of Revelation, we may appear at some point to be
defeated (see Rv 11:7).  But the Lord will raise us from the dead, and we will
reign with Him forever (see Rv 11:11-12).

Power, victory, persecution, apparent defeat, and glorious resurrection are the
dynamics of the Christian life.  Life in Christ is an overwhelming experience.
Under these circumstances, we desperately need your prayerful support, and we
commit ourselves to assist you by our prayers and ministries.  We need each
other (see Cor 12:21).

Presentation Ministries is a witness, olive tree, and lampstand.  You are a
witness, olive tree, and lampstand.  Together we're two witnesses.  Together
let's serve our Lord with Spirit-filled power, total abandonment, and burning
love.


Prayer:  Father, thank You for all those who have obeyed You by working in
Presentation Ministries.  May all of them live for You, die in Your graces,
and be with You forever in heaven.

Promise: "They become like angels and are no longer liable to death." Lk 20:36

Praise:  Alleluia!  Praise the Lord, the faithful and true Witness!
        (Rv 1:5; 19:11)  Alleluia!
-----
[Please write or call for information about becoming a member of Presentation
 Ministries as a "Co-Worker" (I Cor 3:9).]
        Presentation Ministries
        3230 McHenry Avenue
        Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
        (513) 662-JESU
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:21:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              17 Nov 1992 09:24:45 -0500 from <URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:24:45 -0500 <URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>Brent, J.J. here, so if you don't want to hear some liberal rantings on
>Cal's column, hit "next" now:-)
>
     What!? and miss all the fun? :-)


>starts with sex education in fifth grade, the "Quest" program in sixth and

     Pardon my ignorance J.J.  What is the "Quest" program?  We are a little
behind the times out here in Idaho.  We only get things like lesbian speakers
in the high schools.  Just a thought - Do you think those liberal teachers that
you support would be willing to give equal time to a speaker who supports
traditional Christian values?  -  Me either. :-)


>Anyway, I basically think Cal is deriding the democratic process in general,

I'm not sure I follow how Cal's recommendation to pull kids out of public
schools for the purpose of preserving traditional values in society derides
the democratic process.   How democratic is it that the liberal viewpoint can
be crammed down kid's throats in the public schools, but the other side
can't say a word because of that old bogeyman "separation of Church and State"?


>I read Cal religiously for amusement and I got a good laugh in that particular
>column when he started it by saying he was an officer in Reagan's Moral
>Majority:-)

Then you also read him say that he opposed starting the moral majority back up.
Are you one of those liberals who roll their eyes and snicker when Reagan's
name is mentioned? :-)

>As a side note, in this mornings' paper, there was an article on the Bishops'
>letter on women's role in the Church. A bishop was quoted as saying that
>one of the problems with American Catholics is that from birth they have
>been ingrained with the idea of Democracy. Cal and the bishops must be
>thinking alike:-) -J.J.

Are you implying that you think the Church should be a democracy J.J.?
I can see it now - the first Pope elected by the people would be the one who
promises that our prayers will be more effective if he is elected.  Oh, and
we can knock off that Confession and Penance stuff.  After all, people aren't
really sinful,  they are a product of their genes and up-bringing, its simply
not their fault!  :-)


Brent
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: papal electors (was: Re: Church of England & women priests)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:51:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.134415.26749@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.203102.21745@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>>1) The successor of Peter has always been chosen by the successors of the
>>Apostle's.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong about that.  The successors of the Apostles are
>the bishops, and papal electors have not always been bishops.  As a
>matter of fact, it was only during the papacy of John XXIII that Cardinals
>were required by canon law to be bishops, though in practice that has
>been true for some time.

I may be wrong here in the particulars, however it was my understanding that
there have been lay cardinals, but that they did not participate in the elevation of the Pope.  I am subject to correction here.

>Nonetheless, there have been cardinals, i.e. papal electors, who only
>held the rank of deacon.  In the early church, there may even have been
>lay electors, since the bishop, including the bishop of Rome, was
>elected by the people of the diocese.
>
It is true that in the early Church, the bishop including the bishop of Rome
were often suggested by the people of the diocese.  However, that was never
what conferred the episcopacy on them.  Those suggested by the people of the
diocese had to be consecrated a bishop by the laying on of hands by a consecrated bishop in communion with Rome.

Although one not in communion with Rome could consecrate a bishop, typically
he was considered to have separated himself from the Church if he performed
this consecration against the express wishes of those in communion with Rome.

>I'm not sure how long it's been since there was a non-bishop cardinal,
>but in any case, it's just plain false to say that the pope has always
>been chosen by bishops.

I was not talking, though certainly my language was open to, about the way in
which candidates are found.  Rather, I was talking about what actions actually
confer the office.

But thank you for your clarifications.

Peace,
John
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Jesus and opinion polls
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:47:55 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

Pope John Paul is not Jesus.
Pope Paul VI was not Jesus.
Pope Pius IX was not Jesus.
Cardinal Ratzinger is not Jesus.

Deserving as each of them may be of our utmost respect, and deserving as
their techings may be of our assiduous consideration,
brain-dead knee-jerk zealotry in support of every last pronouncement of any
of the above, or of any other Pope or Bishop you could name, is of no
benefit to the Church. And (_pace_ the supporters of number three on the
list, and a few eccentrics who still persist) this is not the way the Church
works, like it or not.

Steve Barr mentions Judas. That sort of insult is a double edged weapon.

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:56:00 EST
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Separating our kids from public schools

>Therefore, I'll have to conclude that no, we don't have a duty to teach other
>people's children "basic values" because we cannot even define them.  Oh, sure,
>you can define them for you, and I for me, but yours and mine won't match in
 all

The problem with public schools (in my area at least) is there is no
respect for authority.  Teachers do not have complete control over the
behavior of the kids.  If we are talking about teaching basic values,
respect would be a good start.

Catholic schools work out so well because they don't usually get the
discipline problems.  Students know exactly from kindergarten how they
are supposed to behave.

                                Liz Moreau
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:38:02 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Ordination of women

Gordon, my point is that I have a hard time with the way you word "Women wishing
to be priests..."  This wording is designed to imply that a woman's call to the
priesthood is simply her desire to be a priest and not actually a call.  The
point I'm trying to make is that I can claim the same thing for men and you
cannot refute it.  I have as much evidence for claiming that a man's calling to
the priesthood is nothing more that his desire to be a priest and not a true
calling as you have for claiming the same for women.  That's why I still state
that your argument, as you've worded it, is a red herring.

Now, if women were allowed to enter the process and found by the process to be
uncalled, as were the men you cite, I might be more convinced.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Cd. Mahony on the new Missal
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:17:29 GMT
 <1992Nov19.160202.4977@erenj.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I like the old version better, too.  I also don't understand why they
added "For the kingdom," etc. to the end.

Now as long as they don't change the Hail Mary to "... Holy Mary,
parent of God...."  :-)

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:56:23 GMT

In article <921117095309.3fc053f7@beast.cs.hh.ab.com> URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>The only "assumption" I am making is that the tradition of the all-male
>priesthood was fine for the people of the Church for the last 2000 years.
>It is increasingly not becoming fine for the people of the Church, today.

   Why?

>Some like to call it a "Sacred Tradition" and elevate it to the level of
>a Sacrement. If the Church were to relax its rules on the ordination of
>women, then the sacrement celibrated by them would indeed be licit. Your

   I never said anything about it being licit or illicit.  I said it
was invalid.  "Illicit" means it is not permitted; "invalid" in this
context means it is not _possible_.  The teaching of the Church is
that ordination of women would be _invalid_.

>"logical conclusions" vanish if we conclude that the "Magisterium" was right
>in denying women ordination prior to today, and is right, again, in allowing
>ordination to all "called" persons today. Maybe it's the "logic" that

   Sorry, but this cannot be.  The reason the Magisterium has given is
that it is _invalid_, i.e. not possible.  It can't be suddenly
possible now if it has been impossible for 200 years.

>extrapolates,"Well the first 12 called happened to be males, so the next
>________(fill in big number) called must also be males." What I hear people
>saying in greater proportion is "Your number's up:-)". -J.J.

   Not that this is the main argument against ordination of women, but
what if we change your "the first 12 called" to "all those called by
the incarnate Christ Himself?"

   Could you please give some reasons, based in Scripture and/or
Tradition, on why you believe women are able to be, and should be,
ordained?  The burden of proof is on you.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Pastoral letter
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:02:50 GMT

In article <9211202341.AA24732@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Do you really think there is any impetus for an action in the American
>Catholic Church such as was taken by the ECUSA?  Remember that we have
>authorized ordination of women since 1977, and the Anglican Church
>(our mother church) only approved it last week.
>   But I guess there is a different authoritarian relationship isn't
>there?  Seems too bad that a group of men half way round the world who
>speak a different language can have such an influence on the American
>Church, eh?

   Too bad?  Thank God!

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:28:00 EST
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology

>Question: I have not read the bible looking for this particular issue, but
>I am curious: does the bible specifically say that God is not a woman, or
>does it merely refer to God as a man?

Andrew:  I'm at work and don't have my Bible with me, so I can't cite
specific verses.  Why I believe that God is a He and not She  .....
many places in the Bible God is referred to as He and I believe when
the 'Our Father' is being taught to the apostles, it starts with 'Our
Father.'

Maybe someone who has an online Bible can help out here.

Have a great weekend!

                                        Liz Moreau
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:48:08 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              17 Nov 1992 15:06:40 EST from <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:06:40 EST Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
>Brent Winiger writes:
>
>>I disagree Brian, and cite as evidence the breakdown of morals, relationships,
>>etc. in our society.  The schools are a fundamental under-pinning of society.
>>They say to the kids who we are as a society, what we think, and what we
>>believe.  Because children often spend more time at school than with their
>>parents, those children take a part of their identity from the schools.  That
>>is difficult for parents who disagree with the philosophies of the public
>>schools to compete with.  If we believe that as parents, teaching good values
>>to our kids can elevate them, we must also believe that teaching bad values
>>can degrade them.  When we teach kids that divorce is something that is
>>expected, that values are irrelevant, etc., that is going to have an impact on
>>their view of how the world is and should be.
>
>It's not the schools causing the "moral breakdown" (for which I see no
>compelling evidence, by the way).  If there is a moral breakdown, it's because
>parents are abdicating their responsibilites.  From my observations, the
>schools
>aren't teaching "bad" values.  They aren't teaching any values, as well they
>should not.


Ignoring the lesbian speakers promoting their lifestyle at one of our local
schools last week, Isn't teaching no values a value in and of itself?


>My point exactly.  The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.  I'm glad
>you seem to agree, but if you do, you seem to be somewhat at odds with
>yourself,
>judging from the first paragraph above.
>
I agree that there should be more parental involvement.  I don't agree that
schools are always value neutral nor am I sure they can be, nor am I sure
they should be.  Let me ask you this Brian:  As you acknowledge, many parents
are abdicating their responsibilities in teaching basic values to their
children.  Does society, and do we as Christians, have an interest and
possibly a moral obligation to convey basic values to the many children of
irresponsible parents?  Would society be better off?  Would those children be
better off?

Brent
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:10:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <199211190055.AA07321@caritas.cotdazr.org>
zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft) writes:

> "Congress shall make no law ... respecting [that is,
> with respect to] religion."

Well I'd say Congress nowadays is making a lot of laws *dis*respecting
religion!  :-)


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic