HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:12:08 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Dec. 15

                    Tuesday, December 15, 1992

Zephaniah 3:1-2, 9-13        Psalm 34             Matthew 21:28-32

                        "THE PRIDE OF LIFE"
                          (I Jn 2:16, KJV)

"For then will I remove from your midst the proud braggarts, and you shall no
 longer exalt yourself on My holy mountain." --Zephaniah 3:11

The Lord calls us to repent of pride, self-exaltation, and arrogance, and
become "a people humble and lowly" (Zeph 3:12).  Pride can disqualify us
from Christmas.  But through humility, we can fit into the manger scene at
Bethlehem with the lowly handmaid Mary, the poor Joseph, and the simple
shepherds.

In our society, arrogance has almost reached new proportions, if that were
possible.  Some people are so prideful they deny the truth of God's word,
as if millions of people for thousands of years were too stupid to see that
the Bible was just a book.  Others deny the significance of the physical
and traditional differences between men and women, as if the world has been
in the dark for centuries until they and their friends arrived on the scene.
"In laying claim to such knowledge, some men have missed the goal of faith"
(I Tm 6:21).  Moreover it's not uncommon for Catholics to contradict the
teaching of the Church and the Pope.  They're supposedly much more enlightened
than past and current Church leaders. "These men pour abuse on things of which
they are ignorant" (see II Pt 2:12).  Some have even arbitrarily decided that
the old concept of objective truth is now "out."  They have finally discovered,
and now proudly announce to the world, that truth is relative.

The arrogance of our times approaches insanity.  We must repent of arrogance.
This is necessary for life and for Christmas.


Prayer:  Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like Yours.  (see
         Mt 11:29)

Promise: "I will change and purify the lips of the peoples." --Zeph 3:9

Praise:  Jesus healed Ed of homosexual tendencies.
-----
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, August 17, 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:20:05 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Myth exposed!!!

Stephen Barr <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU> writes:
>There we have it. Gregory did not like railways and gas lighting
>and did not introduce them in the Papal States.

Pope John-Paul II does not like women priests and refuses to introduce
them into the Papal State. Gee, maybe there's hope yet:-) -J.J.
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: When will the new RC catechism be released in English?
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:15:31 GMT

In article <BzF6E9.3r2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.172236.3713@news.cs.indiana.edu> azamora@cs.indiana.edu writes:
>>Does anybody know when the new Roman Catholic catechism will be released in  
>>English?  I called the local parish, and they didn't have any information.
>
>   Some time in the Spring of 1993.  It still has to be translated.
>
Which, in itself should be interesting, considering the usual hatchet 
job most translator types do...

In the line of supposedly "correcting" the translation of prayers and
texts, I wonder if they are retranslating the Confitior to make up for
the absolutely horrid chop job they did on it in the 1969 missal...???

Betcha not...



-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Exxon doesn't pay me to voice their opinions...
Senior Engineer    |Semper ubi sub ubi.
bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see forever on the Net...
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Queens school board
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:56:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Dec 1992 13:28:08 -0500 from <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:28:08 -0500 <J.J.> said:
>
>I didn't know that this
>was an all out assault on democracy and the Church.
>

I can tell you quite seriously J.J., that that is exactly what many of us see
is happening in this country.  The people who are saying this aren't
uneducated reactionaries either.  For example, William Bennett, former
Secretary of Education, former Drug Czar, and former head of the National
Endowment for the Arts devotes a fair amount of his latest book to exactly
that.

Brent
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Financing education (was Queens School Board
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:49:42 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


     Marty has hit the nail on the head! Let me add a
couple of other points. It has always been the view
of the Catholic Church that parents have primary rights
in the education of their children. Both the family
and the State are natural institutions with certains
rights and obligations. But in the eyes of Catholic
social teaching the family is "prior" to the State,
and more fundamental. 
     Moreover according to Catholic social teaching,
Catholics have a duty and therefore also, of course,
a right to give their children a Christian education,
specifically a Catholic education. This is a duty of
conscience, and it cannot be right for the State to so
arrange the educational system that greater burdens are
placed on Catholics in educating their children 
according to their religious consciences than upon their
fellow citizens. The State is then not supporting the
family in its natural and rightful functions but impeding
it.
     In some sort of voucher system, everyone would contribute
according to his ability to carrying the educational burden
of society. But there would be no added burden placed on
parents by virtue of giving their children a Catholic
education. 
     The idea that a Catholic education is a luxury, while
education in general is a right, so that for society has
a duty to provide education, but parents have to pay twice
for the "privilege" of a Catholic education, is based
on a view of the State with which Catholic social teaching
has always been at war. Every anti-Catholic despotism ---
the French Revolutionary regimes of 1789 and after, the
regimes of Mussolini, of Hitler, of the Communists, etc.,
have always closed the Catholic schools and made a government
monopoly of education. The rights of the family and of the
Church in the sphere of education are obviously more
fundamental than those of the State. The State should play
a subordinate and assisting role. It can require standards
that ensure good citizenship and productive membership of
society. That is to the "common good". But non-religious
education is not better for citizenship than Christian
education (Indeed the founding fathers thought quite the
opposite!). The State has no right to disfavor by its policies
Christian education. That is beyond its rights, and simply
tyrannical.       Steve.                         A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
tyrranical.  Steve.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:59:47 GMT

In article <921217094248.20206155@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>>Considering the fact that a day old baby is just as physically dependent
>>upon someone else, if not the mother, for providing it with the basic
>>raw necessities of food and water, why is it an individual?
>
>That day old baby is surviving as an independent biological "unit", it
>is no longer part of the mother's biological system. So, to me, there
>is a difference between physically dependent and biologically dependent.
>What this has to do with "legal" person, I don't know:-)

   J.J., the point has already been made in this discussion that the
unborn baby is _not_ "part of the mother's biological system."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:30:53 GMT
Organization: Seashell Software

bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:

> In article <9212162235.AA33674@chaos.intercon.com> Amanda Walker <amanda@INTE
> >"Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM> writes:
> >>         Wow, and I thought that my bishop John Cardinal O'Connor was an
> >> American.  You learn new things everyday. :)
> >
> >His citizenship is not the issue.  However, there are civil restrictions on
> >holding office if you owe allegience to "foreign powers", regardless of your
> >citizenship.  It's called "conflict of interest."
> >
> >
> Give me a break.  The government and people of the united states do not
> set the rules for who we look to for spiritual direction and advice, nor
> do we pledge fealty to the Pope.  Nor do the bishops, priests,
> cardinals, even the Jesuits.  I would dare say that the Church that was
> founded by Jesus Christ is a higher authority than whatever corrupt,
> venal method of government we have today.  If push came to shove, I
> would trust my eternal happiness to the Church rather than our
> government.
>
>
> --
> Bryan D. Boyle     |Exxon doesn't pay me to voice their opinions...
> Senior Engineer    |Semper ubi sub ubi.
> bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see forever on the Net...

Hmmm...bishops, priests, cardinals, even Jesuits do take vows of obedience.
That's pretty close to pledging fealty.

Oh, yeah, and you can have a break, since you want one so bad.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:44:53 GMT

In article <9212171257.AA08529@chaos.intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>In article <9212171347.AA03281@trent.noname>, "Donald J. Magee" 
><djm@TRENT.ATT.COM> writes:
>> I maintain that a priest in the diocese of say New York, has vowed 
>> obedience to John Cardinal O'Connor and no foreign power.  He is bound 
>> to obey his bishop, the Archbishop of New York... in this case another 
>> American. 
>
>And John Cardinal O'Connor has vowed obedience to *his* ordinary, who is...?
>
>Think about it.
>
>
>Amanda Walker
>InterCon Systems Corporation
>
>
We all have.  What is the point?  That as a cardinal he is not qualified
to speak out and exhort those in his pastoral care that they should 
not stray from a defined moral good?  Or, because he may just be
intelligent enough that he realizes that obedience to the civil laws of
this country do not override his duty to Almighty God as represented
here
on earth by the Universal Church as headed by Pope John Paul II?  This 
same tripe was passed off in the late 1950's when it was apparent that
John Kennedy was on his way to the White House-it was just so much
anti-Catholic claptrap then.  It is even more embarrassing now for
those that should know the difference.

As a citizen of this country, he has just as much right to speak out
on issues that concern him, whether the media, the american communist
lawyer's union (aclu), moral relativists, or grasping politicans 
want ot hear it or not.  No one questions whether _they_ have the
right, intelligence, or standing to question the Church, so why should
they care what the Church has to say?  What are they afraid of?  Or,
perhaps in their darked rooms at 3:00am, they wake up in a cold sweat 
because they know they are wrong?  Or, maybe, they realize that they
can get a guaranteed spot on the PM news if they take a potshot
at the Church, and the loss of that would be a mortal blow to their 
sorry egos.  

(flame bait off)


-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Exxon doesn't pay me to voice their opinions...
Senior Engineer    |Semper ubi sub ubi.
bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see forever on the Net...
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 92 19:48:39 CST
Organization: Seashell Software

"John R. Covert 13-Dec-1992 1853" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

> 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.
>
> Up until the French Revolution, the Church often granted sanctuary to
> people wanted by the state.  Should this priest be allowed to take up
> residence in a monastery, and would the sheriff be bold enough to force
> his way in to take him to prison?
>
> /john

That's a tough issue.  Most of the historical precedents for such an offer of
sanctuary are from countries where Catholicism was the state religion.  Civil
authorities were actually concerned about the ramifications of being
excommunicated in those days.

If I wanted to get that priest to jail, I guess I'd pick an athiest deputy to
go get him <g>.  Of course, I'd hope that the priest would not be so selfish as
to place others in the position of losing their jobs or their faith (depending
on whether they would decide to break the sanctuary) because of his actions.

You know, I remember when priests were allowed to hold political offices in
this country, until the Pope forbade it.  Now we have priests engaging in
obvious political activity in terms of the pro-life movement.  I can't help but
wonder whether or not a few priests in Congress would have been more useful
than a few priests in jail.





|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: trent!djm@jolt.att.com, catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:13:57 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 17-Dec-1992 1816" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      The Anglican Communion

The worldwide Anglican Communion consists of the following member
Churches:

The Anglican Church of Australia
Igreja Episcopal do Brasil
The Church of the Province of Burundi
The Anglican Church of Canada
The Church of the Province of Central Africa
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sud de Las Americas
The Province of Ceylon
The Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (The Holy Catholic Church in China)
The Church of England
The Church in the Province of the Indian Ocean
The Church of Ireland
The Nippon Seikokai (The Holy Catholic Church in Japan)
The Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East
The Church of the Province of Kenya
The Province of Melanesia
The Church in the Province of Myanmar (Burma)
The Church of the Province of New Zealand
The Church of the Province of Nigeria
The Church of the Province of Papua New Guinea
The Philippine Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church of Rwanda
The Scottish Episcopal Church
The Church of the Province of Southern Africa
The Province of Sudan
The Church in the Province of Tanzania
The Church of Uganda
The Episcopal Church in the United States of America
The Church in Wales
The Church of the Province of West Africa
The Church in the Province of the West Indies
The Anglican Church of Zaire

In addition, the following non-autonomous Churches are under metropolitan
jurisdiction of other provinces:  The Lusitanian Church (Portugal), The
Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, The Episcopal Church in Cuba, and
Dioceses in Bermuda, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Malaysia,
Korea, and Singapore.

The following Churches are in Full Communion with the Anglican Churches:
The Church of Bangladesh, The Church of North India, The Church of Pakistan,
The Church of South India; the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar; The Old
Catholic Churches in communion with the See of Utrecht (in Europe -- the
Polish National Catholic Church in the U.S. has terminated intercommunion
in response to the ordination of women by the U.S. and Canada).
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Vatican & current European trends--ques
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:25:54 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

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?

-Ken

miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Graecis ac barbaris, sapientibus, et
opinions are my own      | insipientibus debitor sum
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Myth exposed!!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:07:31 GMT

     A little while ago, our esteemed colleague, Martin Barry,
asserted that the Popes had once "condemned" railway travel and 
gas lighting. I expressed the view that this could not have been         
the case and ventured the following explanation of this myth.
Perhaps, I said, it arose from the fact that the Papal States were
slow to introduce railways and gas lighting, and it was not until
Pius IX that these amenities were introduced into the Papal
lands. Martin, however, assured me that these "condemnations" are
well-known and frequently cited by historians, and said he would
look for documentation.

     Well, it looks like my conjecture was right. I have searched
high and low in our university library for evidence of such
Papal condemnations of railway travel and have found none. 
Moreover, in the old book "The Question Box" by Fr. Conway which
was a compendium of frequently asked questions about the Church
with answers, there is no reference to such condemnations. Very
surprising if they were real since such condemnations would 
obviously have become a staple of anti-Catholic propaganda.
       
     But I did find evidence of my thesis!
In a book entitled "A Dictionary of the Popes" by the noted
Anglican historian J.N.D.Kelly I looked up the predecessor of
Pope Pius IX, namely Gregory XVI. Kelly says:
     "Gregory XVI was an austere, learned monk who was hostile
     to modern trends (he refused to have railways in his
     domains, calling them 'chemins d'enfer')."  
'His domains' means the Papal States. I do not know French,
but it appears that 'chemins d'enfer' is a pun. Railroads
were called 'chemins de fer' meaning 'roads of iron'. I
suspect 'enfer' is related to the English 'infernal'. So it
is clear Gregory XVI disliked these newfangled things and
refused to have them in the Papal States.

     In the very excellent and sympathetic biography of Pope
Pius IX, written by E.E.Y.Hales, a Protestant if I am not
mistaken, entitled "Pio Nono", I find on page 58:
     "The range of these reforms [of Pius IX] was wide. The
     first, which followed closely upon the amnesty, was
     the commission on railways. Pius had never been sympathetic
     with Gregory's mistrust of railways. He set up a commission
     as early as August 22nd,.... Four lines were projected
     [in the Papal States]....
        "While these plans were being laid, others were being prepared 
     to provide gas lighting in the streets. ...... To some
     this was to symbolize, rather literally, the break with the
     obscurantism of the Gregorian regime."

There we have it. Gregory did not like railways and gas lighting
and did not introduce them in the Papal States. Thus arises the
"historical fact" that the Popes "condemned" railways and gas
lighting as an example of the unreliability of the doctrinal
teaching of the Popes! Thus arise most of the myths of the
"progressives". Lesson: before we believe the worst about the
Church let us check our sources. Steve Barr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 92 16:38:00 CST
Organization: Seashell Software

DGPAZ@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU writes:

> On Fri, 4 Dec 1992 19:59:58 CST "Edward J. Branley"
> <elendil@SEASHELL.MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US> said:
>
> > We had Kathleen baptized in the hospital, and followed that up with
> > a formal christening in the Church a couple of months after she got
> > out of the hospital.
>
> She was baptised twice?

No, we did the actual baptism (the water pouring) in the hospital a couple of
days after she was born.  That actually caused a bit of a rift in my family,
because my mom called a priest who is a family friend to go over to the
hospital and do it without consulting me or my wife.  Needless to say, I was
quite upset at her for taking that liberty.  That's yet another example of the
strong belief that a child should be baptized.  She didn't know that a priest
from our parish was supposed to come over two days later.  Anyway, after she
got home, we followed the hospital quickie ceremony with a private ceremony in
the church after mass one Sunday, with the godparents, grandparents, etc.
Father went through the regular baptismal ceremony, but we skipped the actual
baptism when it came time for the water.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU