HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:09:28 GMT


In article <Bw2ApB.M8p@acsu.buffalo.edu> pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilins
kas) writes:
>ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco) writes:
>
>
>>The church's position is that it is not a natural difference, but a
>>disorder.  Psychopaths can also claim to be "born" that way, but it
>>gives them no right to do what they do.
>
>Hold on, here.  Are you *seriously* equating consentual homosexual sex with
>murder?  I wonder if your extreme prejudice and close-mindedness are genetic
>or learned behavior.
>
>Drawing parallels to alcoholism and mass-murderers is ludicrous, as these are
>acts which cause harm, while the only harm caused by the homosexual lifestyle
>is when one of them gets physically abused by close-minded bigots because of
>who he/she is.
>
>Phil,
>(Not homosexual, but still deeply offended by some of the talk here)
>____________________________________________________________________________
>pck@acsu.buffalo.edu /  "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
>Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
>restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
>stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.

Let's be fair. He didnt say that homosexual sex was murder. He was (as I read
it) stating the opinion that just because you are born with a propensity
to act a certain way does not excuse you from culpability. The RC church
believes in free will. The continuing thread in society is to deny free will.
Everyon is a "victim."  It used to be that if you were a drunk it was
your fault. Now it is some genetic defect, and drunks are victims, not
considered wrong in their actions.

     Secondly, in case you haven't heard, homosexual activity is
*very* dangerous in todays world, as is any promiscuous sex. This goes
to show the wisdom of the Church's position, *no* sex outside of marriage.

Karl Schudt
(Heterosexual, but deeply offended by some peoples efforts to call
anyone who disagrees with them as close-minded, intolerant, or Hitleresque)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: women priests
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:56:40 GMT


A recent poster said that "Jesus was a human person." Actually, Jesus Christ
was a DIVINE person with a HUMAN nature.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:59:00 -0400
From:         "Nancy M. Piatkowski" <PIATKONM@SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re; Opus Dei

Not everyone agrees with what the National Catholic Reporter publishes, myself
included but when I want to find out about a group/idea/agency I read material
from many sources so I have a basis for comparison. Reading only the material
published by a group about the group gives a one-sided position- the favorable,
self-serving one.  No one within a group writes anything that would denigate
the group.  I have done some reading on cults written by academically trained
scholars and what was written in the article parallels much of what they say
about cults- also I find that any group that is secretive about who belongs or
exactly what it does is suspect whether or not it is inside or outside the
church or what its motives are-
Nancy
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, 13 Oct 1992 14:53:40 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Oct 13,  4:40am, "(Sharon O'Neil)" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
} Are we to say that the only valid love is that love which might result in
} new human life?  I agree -- conception and birth are miraculous.  But you
} can't say that love which does not result in birth is necessarily sinful
} because it can't result in birth.
}
} Can a gay couple be fruitful in the love they share for each other and the
} love and friendship that they cultivate?  Why must it be that they have
} children to be "real."  My two best friends are a gay male couple and I think
} that the joy they bring their friends just by being sweet and funny and
} smart is fruit enough.

	Love does not equal sex.  I have seen so many times an equating
of the two by those trying to justify or rationalize homosexual acts.
"Love" does not get women pregnant!  Sex does.  Similarly, if two
men want to love one another, I don't have a problem with that.  If
they want to have sex with each other, yes, I have a problem with that.
I have a number of gay friends, and they are indeed wonderful people,
and I enjoy their company and love them very much.  That doesn't
mean I approve of their actions if they have sex.
}
} Speaking as a heterosexual who has had a serious -- and yes, I confess,
} sexual relationship with a man, I know that I could not live the rest of
} my life in celibacy.  I cannot ask my gay friends to live their lives in
} celibacy.  If they wish to, that's one thing.  But it's an awful lot to
} ask someone to just not have sex for their entire life because it isn't
} "the right way."
	Hm.  We'll trade anecdotes... Speaking as a heterosecual who
has had a serious -- and yes, I confess, sexual relationship with a
woman, I know that I COULD live the rest of my life in celibacy.  I can
ask my gay friends to live their lives in celibacy, for their souls
and their eternal life depend on it.
}-- End of excerpt from "(Sharon O'Neil)"



--
* 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.
The Tree of Learning bears the noblest fruit, but noble fruit tastes bad.
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones update
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:20:45 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <92280.130019MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen) writes:
>I see that I accidentally left out some words in my discussion
>of the corrupting effects of using alter girls.  Here is the
>passage in question, with the omitted words in angle brackets:
>
>Using altar girls corrupts the children of the parish, especially
>the altar girls themselves.  They are taught by example that if
>they don't like any of the Church's rules they are free to ignore
>And they are taught this by the people who have a special
>responsibility before God to <teach them to> obey God and
>His Church: the pastor who permits the unauthorized use of altar
>girls and the parents who permit their children to participate
>That is bad enough, but if it is okay to defy the laws of God's
>Church, why not defy the laws of God Himself?  After all,
>the Church's legislative authority comes from God.
>
>Marty Helgesen

This mode of argument gives genuine cause for alarm, because of the way it
seeks to equate minor conventions of liturgical discipline with the most
serious of moral imperatives. If every pronouncement that the Church had
ever uttered had to be observed with equal assiduity we would be asked to
believe that killing were no more grave a sin than travelling by railway
(honest), or using gas lighting (no kidding), or attending co-educational
schools (really). Fortunately it's not the way Marty Hegelsen suggests:
we are all in possession of a sense of proportion here -- there are some
laws of God that are more important than others; there are some laws of the
Church that are more important than others, or more likely to stand the test
of time. To borrow a memorable phrase of a well known English Dominican
theologian, "all the Church's pronouncements merit our appropriate and
respectful response, and sometimes the appropriate and respectful response
to such a pronouncement is to throw it in the bin".

My first posting! Nice to have found this newsgroup.
Martin Barry (M.C.Barry@Manchester.Ac.UK).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:05:50 EDT
From:         "Patrick S. Golden" <pgolden@NHGS.VAK12ED.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones update
              at Oct 8, 92 9:29 am

According to Marty Helgesen:
>
> >>
> >Seems strange to me that Jesus would allow a women to dry his
> >feet with her hair, but, accoding to the above, a woman cannot
> >dry a priest's hands with a cloth.
>
> Leaving that fact aside and assuming for the moment that the altar
> boy does dry the priest's hands your comment still does not make
> sense.  There is no connection between the incident described in the
> Gospels and the act of serving Mass except the superficial fact that
> both involve drying something.
>
> Marty Helgesen
>
My point is that Jesus allowed women to serve him physically,
go with him to his cross, and be the first to tell of his
resurection.  I see no sense in priests restricting a woman's
ability to serve at mass.

Without conducting a survey, I feel fairly confident that this
type of restriction is what Catholics, male and female, have in
mind when they complain about the Church's archaic and outmoded
rules.

Pax
Patrick

--
|-------------------------------|
|++Patrick Golden++             |
|pgolden@nhgs.vak12ed.edu       |
|-------------------------------|
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:19:00 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: English translation

Excerpts from catholic: 15-Oct-92 English translation Nancy
Piatkowski@AMERICA (613)

> One change that takes effect the first Sunday of Advent is at the end of the
readings is from "This is the Word of the Lord" to "The Word of the Lord" Nancy

This is the stupidest innovation I've ever encountered!

I have no theological problems with it, but it's simply stupid,
grammatically incorrect, incomplete, and mistranslated.  Any first-year
Latin student knows that in a sentence such as "Dominus Verbi est" has
an IMPLIED "This" as the subject, because Latin does not require a Hic
there, and indeed it would be incorrect to put it there.

"Dominus Verbi est" (which is my guess for the Latin original) means,
"This is the word of the Lord."  "The word of the Lord" is simply a
mistranslation; it's annoying, painful to hear, and simply ridiculous.
This is certainly not "more majestic and flowing."  Whenever I've heard
this, it sounded stunted and hurried, like the lector forgot something.
It has none of the rhythm and majesty of, "This *is* the WORD of the
Lord."

What is so dang wrong with putting grammatically correct sentences in
the liturgy?  Do these people just want to change things for the sake of
changing them?  OK, so then let's remove "for us" from the words, "So
that it may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I would be happy with that change.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 03:00:09 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Women Popes!?! (History Question)

No, there were no women popes.  There are legends about a "Pope
Joan" who, according to the legends was a woman who disguised
herself as a man and became a priest who was elected pope.  The
legend has no basis in fact.  Look her up in any standard
encyclopedia for details.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm  mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:50:16 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Peer pressure and grape juice

Excerpts from catholic: 12-Oct-92 Re: Peer pressure and grape..
FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.E (1798)

>     Yes there are recovering alcoholics in every community.  But the
> responsibility for them to remain recovering rests on them.  Offering
> wine at Church during the Eucharist is not a tempting by the
> community.  It is freely offered to anyone who wishes to partake.
> It is not mandatory.

Except for priests, whom I believe are required to partake of the Blood,
which must be consecrated.

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:35:44 GMT

In article <00961B09.BA1E4540.14391@swdev.si.com> tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM (Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425) writes:
>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!

   Actually, this is not such a bad analogy.  Many people who call for
the ordination of women either choose to ignore the significance of
the Eucharist, or else are just plain ignorant (no pun intended) of
it.  They conveniently forget that the priest acts _in persona
Christi_, "in the person of Christ."  The Eucharist itself is the most
intimate act between Christ, Who is the Bridegroom, and His Church,
Who is the Bride.  A woman cannot act in the person of the Bridegroom.

   The usual arguments for ordination of women are based upon
contemporary social values, rather than anything based on Scripture or
Tradition.  The usual "_ad hominem_" attack against the Church in such
matters is that the Church is behind the times, because She does not
bend to popular social trends.  No, the Church is not behind the
times, but _beyond_ the times.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:07:27 EDT
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Pastoral vs. Authoritarian

Okay. My last post to the list added nothing new to the discussion. It
will teach me to post without reading all messages on the thread. My
appologies for the wasted bandwith, and my thanks to people like Amanda
who stated what I was trying to say much better than I was able.

The thread does highlight something I've been thinking about while
reading some recent posts. It seems to me that our religion is one which
is almost impossible to follow in its entirety. Some have tried, of
course, and we call them saints. Almost everyone else fails, or never
even really gets started.

What can one do when faced with this fact? On a personal level, an
obvious answer is to heed Jesus and attempt to deal with the beam in our
own eye before attempting to criticize the specks in our brothers and
sisters' eyes.

On an institutional level, though, it seems to me that one can deal with
sin in either an authoritarian matter or one can deal with the fact that
life isn't perfect and try to be more pastoral in one's approach. Let's
look at divorce. Unlike homosexuality, here was something Jesus was very
clear about. It is wrong.

When faced with unhealthy and even harmful marriage situations, the
church could be authoritarian and just restate Jesus's words ("Whoever
divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and
the woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery")
or it could look for a loving and pastoral solution.

It came up with the idea of annulments, and the idea is a good one. I
have a friend who's husband took off with a woman from his office --
after fifteen years of marriage and six kids! What is my friend to do?
Clearly she is the injured party here. It would be ridiculous to say the
marriage never existed, but it would be proper to recognize that the
marriage does not now exist. Her last name is a source of pain to her. It
reminds her daily of betrayal. Annulments -- even though everyone knows
they're just the catholic version of divorce -- allows her to be free of
a terrible situation and get on with her life.

I think annulments are a good solution to a difficult situation, and such
pastoral approaches should be explored in other areas. Yes, in an ideal
world such things would not be necessary and, yes, it would be better not
to have to take this step, but given our sinful state in this sinful
world this is the proper and loving thing for these people to do.

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:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:02:54 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: Pastoral vs. Authoritarian

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu) writes:

>Annulments -- even though everyone knows they're just the catholic version of
>divorce

This is precisely the problem I always had with the term annulment when I was
RC.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter what you
call it, it *is* a duck.  Likewise with annulments.  It always struck me as
legalistic sleight-of-hand to avoid the word "divorce" in an attempt to
circumvent the scriptural prohibition on divorce.  Episcopalians (in my opinion
- you don't have to share it) recognized this and accept civil divorce,
recognizing that forcing two people to remain in a situation (such as you
described) that is not life- and love-giving (anti-God) is often the better
choice.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Holding Hands
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:08:46 GMT

In article <921008104110.202090d0@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writ
es:
>Does anyone know the "official" policy of the Church about holding hands
>during the Our Father at Mass. It's probably just a local custom but it
>seems some people just about kill themselves trying to contort themselves
>over pews while others don't hold hands at all.
>Or is it just another evil corruption of the Mass caused by Vat.II:-) -J.J.


THis is strictly a local custom, as you suppose. The next question is: is it a 
good idea? Aren't we praying together throughout the whole Mass? Why not hold 
hands all the way through? This is the sort of thing that is fine for private 
prayer groups, but at the Mass everyone should worship as the Church wishes, 
and not impose individual quirks on others.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:48:50 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)

James J Buffer (jbuffer@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU) writes about God planting a
brain in our heads to think for ourselves:

>Yes, He did. But why? So that we could find the truth. And sometimes you find
>the truth by going to a rightfully established authority on the topic. What
>authority is more reliable than Apostolic authority?

Because, at the judgement, God will not ask me if I followed some institution's
instructions, He'll ask me what I did for the benefit of His other children.  I
for one will never abdicate my own responsibility for doing what I feel God asks
of me and for deciding on my own what that is because I'm going to be the one
held accountable for it.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Catholic vs. non-Catholic
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:44:58 GMT

"(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:

>On Oct 9,  6:03pm, "(Edward J. Branley)" wrote:
>} Subject: Catholic vs. non-Catholic schools
>} Anyway, I'd like to hear from folks who have their kids in public/private
>} schools and send them to Sunday school (or Saturdays as it is in some
>} parishes).  Are you satisfied with this?  If you could, would you prefer
> having
>} your child in a parochial school?
>}-- End of excerpt from "(Edward J. Branley)"

>	While not a parent, I thought I'd add my 2 cents...

Me neither.  But I am a veteran of the Catholic school system.  :-)

>	I think one of the best things about Catholic schools is that they
>are the 'Great Equalizer'.  If the kids are required to wear uniforms
>(as at most schools) it knocks down the importance of being the
>best-dressed at school (my eldest niece would be horrified at the
>prospect!).  The fact that you have kids of all backgrounds there is
>a good introduction to the Catholicity (universality) of the Church.

I agree and disagree.

When I was in Catholic grade school -- first through eighth grade -- the girls
were required to wear uniforms, while the boys were not.  I always felt, even
from the time I was six years old, that this was unfair.  We were told this
was because girls are competitive and boys are not when it comes to clothes.
In a way, this was like saying girls are less than boys.  

Of course, uniforms shouldn't be the only consideration.  And, of course, 
many non-religious private schools require uniforms as well.

I personally have nothing against uniforms as long as both boys and girls
are required to wear them.

I would examine the philosophies of each school and decide which philosophy
I preferred.  If the private school's philosophy seems compatible with your
educational beliefs, I'd probably choose it.  If the Catholic education is
important to you, I'd choose the Catholic School.

Have you considered CCD for your children?  Does your parish have a group
for young people so they are exposed to their religion?

>	I also think, in general, that parish schools deserve all our
>support, including constructive criticism where necessary.

I may not be much of a Catholic now, but I do believe that I got a much 
better education in the Catholic schools than I ever would have in a public
school.

>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.
>One man tells a falsehood, a hundred repeat it as true.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU