HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:37:53 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 6,  7:11am, "Edward J. Branley" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
} >
} > As Jim MacIntosh pointed out, the prohibition is on clergy running for
} > political office.  However, the Catholic Faith _requires_ us to *not*
} > follow civil authority when its precepts are contrary to moral order,
} > fundamental rights of individuals, or teachings of the Gospel.
} >
}
} 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 from
} within is a bit hypocritical, IMHO.
}-- End of excerpt from "Edward J. Branley"

It's not hypocritical.  Priests are especially called to be in the
world but not of it; to be witnesses to Christ and to his Resurrection
and to the world to come (that's part of the reason they are celibate).
Thus, in the effort to give witness they may participate in demonstrations,
etc.

        The laity's role, in particular, is to conform the everyday world
to the will of Christ (I hope I'm putting this right) by being engaged
in it and witnessing to Christ by their lives.  Therefore, such leadership
is properly the laity's role, not the priests'.

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: jocallag@ovid.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas and (maybe) Farewell
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.084659.15891@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt) writes:
>Now that I've graduated (again) and its time to go int othe real world,
>I may be losing net access for a time. I just wanted to say, its been fun, 
>thanks for reading some of my posts.
>
>Merry Christmas everyone!
>
>
>
>Yours Truly,
>Karl Schudt

goddbye for now.  Good luck! and Merry Christmas to you too!
Dominus tecum!
John
From: x90downey9@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Devotion to Mary
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:36:02 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <CATHOLIC%92121414012510@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>, lhh@LCUXLP.ATT.COM writes:
> I have a copy of the book "True Devotion To Mary" by St. Louis DeMontfort
> (TAN publishing).
> Does anyone have experience with this book, I wonder if its
> really meant for "nonbeginners" in the Christian life ?
> Is this mainstream, or way out in left field ?
> 
>                         Thanks,
>                         Len Horn
>                         lcuxlp!lhh

I have read this book and find it quite interesting. If it is "way out"
or not I should say that it depends on your view. Many people consider
Marian devotion "way out." The book is orthodox in a catholic sense. I should
think it a bit much for somebody just learning about Mary though.

peace and joy always

"john"

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
Keywords: baptism infants catholic canonlaw
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:46:54 GMT

In article <1707@anagld.analytics.com> bob@anagld.analytics.com (Bob Smith) wri
tes:
>Help: need to correspond with canon lawyers about
>the rite of baptism for infants in catholic church.
>I can find nothing in the rite or the law that describes
>a requirement that parents be  married before a child
>can be baptized in a reqular mass.

There is no mention of the parents' marital status in the relevant canons. 
Normally, an infant should be baptized in his parents' parish church. Also, 
there should be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the 
Catholic religion.
     However, there may be a question of pastoral prudence here. If it is 
widely known that the child's parents are not married, why not hold the baptism
privately to preclude possible sandal, gossip, and embarassment? Since I don't 
know the details or your motive for asking this question, I can only speculate.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.150042.23564@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
| 
|> I'm sick and tired of hearing the anti-lifers claim those of us who are
|> opposed to abortion are trying to impress our moral values on the
|> entire country.  The anti-lifers are trying to impress on the country
|> their moral views that women should have the right to abort unborn
|> babies.


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).
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 92 16:44:14 CST
Organization: Seashell Software

15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:

>     I am afraid there is little to be done for this
> courageous priest. But we should try to publicize what
> is being done to him, so that his sacrifice may bear
> as much fruit as possible. And we should pray for him
> and his persecutors.

Agreed...

>
>     To Ed I would make two comments. What this priest is
> doing is not a matter of politics in a partisan sense.
> No one has forbidden priests to engage in moral witness.
> For the clergy to get involved in electoral politics in
> a direct way would undermine their moral authority.
> For example, the most effective way to advance the prolife
> cause would be for Catholics to vote Republican en bloc.
> But obviously the bishops could not urge that without a
> disastrous effect on their credibility.
>     Unfortunately the only priest who was in Congress,
> and who was then told not to seek reelection by the Vatican,
> was Fr. Drinan. He voted consistently "pro choice" on
> abortion.      Steve.
>

Actually, Steve, I was thinking more about some of the very good priests we
lost locally and statewide when the prohibition was implemented.  We had a
priest on the state board of elementary and secondary education, plus a few in
other elected offices.  I didn't realize that the priest in congress voted more
pro-choice than not.  If that's the case, has he ever been disciplined, other
than being forced to leave politics?



|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: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:27:07 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


    Dear John, It is true that Vatican II saw the
papal primacy in the context of the pope as head
of the college of bishops. That is, the pope does
not operate in splendid isolation, on a plane
above the episcopate. He is as it were the linchpin
of the episcopate. His role is to "strengthen his 
brothers". But it would be very wrong to think that
the Roman Catholic Church could accept a view of
the primacy like that of the modern Orthodox Church,
that is to say an honorary primacy. It is true that
Vatican II to some extent balanced Vatican I. But
the teaching of both Councils is "irreformable".
It is Roman Catholic dogma that the Pope has immediate
jurisdiction over all the faithful. For example,
if a heretical theologian were shielded by a bishop,
the Pope could still discipline him. This is not
the ordinary way of proceeding. Such interventions
by the Pope are a kind of last resort. Again, if
a Council of bishops, however numerous, approved a
doctrine it would not have the force of a dogmatic
definition unless accepted by the Pope.     
     This kind of primacy should not be seen as 
subverting the episcopal constitution of the Church.
Rather it is a service of unity for the episcopate
and the Church as a whole. 
     The Catholic Church could accept a less centralized
organization in which the Pope was more indirectly
involved in the affairs of certain sectors of the Church.
The centralization that exists now is partly the result
of the Pope's being Patriarch of the West, and of the
defection of (or crumbling of) the other great Patriarchates.
For Catholics of Latin Rite (about 98% of the whole now)
he is both metropolitan AND Pope. After a union with 
the Orthodox (very hard) and the Anglicans (probably
impossible now) he would have a different position with
respect to them than with respect to the Latins.
However, his primacy would always involve a primacy of
jurisdiction as well as honor. That would not be 
inconsistent with a large measure of autonomy of those other 
branches, but not an autonomy that damaged unity in 
essentials. 
     The Church since Vatican II has not turned back from
collegiality. Despite the squawking of liberals, quite the
reverse! It has discouraged certain chimerical misunderstandings
of collegiality that arose in the sixties. Steve.
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: 6 Dec 92 13:11:15 GMT
Organization: Seashell Software

"John R. Covert 15-Dec-1992 0007" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

> >Based on John's recounting of this event, it looks like the Church in Boston
> >is very much participating in political activity.  Granted the cause is good
> >*this time*, but a prohibition should be a prohibition, lest the Church be
> >viewed as hypocritical.
>
> As Jim MacIntosh pointed out, the prohibition is on clergy running for
> political office.  However, the Catholic Faith _requires_ us to *not*
> follow civil authority when its precepts are contrary to moral order,
> fundamental rights of individuals, or teachings of the Gospel.
>

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 from
within is a bit hypocritical, IMHO.




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:47:58 GMT

In article <921216130530.2020c6ba@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>
>Yes, but not all "subjects" of laws are "legal" persons simply because of
>the protection the law provides them. A prohibition on abortion would
>probably fall into a classification like those of endangered species rather
>than those that protect individual persons. (Once again, just a guess:-)

However legislation designating them as such would make them legal persons.
It is also the case that 25 year old males could be designated endangered
species and therefore protected, though not from murder since they need
not be designated legal "persons."  No one need be designated a legal 
"person".

>
>The question is also what is an individual. Birth is an obvious point
>where a separate individual exists. The moment a sperm cell and egg cell
>meet is less obvious and requires a bit of "faith" to believe:-)

Why do you say at birth?  Because that is when the umbilical cord is
cut?  If I remember my biology correctly, the umbilical cord, as well as
the placenta, is genetically identical to the child, not the mother.  Further
the actual physical development of the child, from very early on, if not 
immediately at conception proceeds according to biological principles within
the foetus, not the mother.  The mother provides the raw material of 
oxygen and nourishment which the foetus incorporates into its organism according to principles within it.  But if dependence upon another for raw material
such as oxygen or nourishment means that one is not an individual then a child
five minutes after having its umbilical cord cut is no more a person than is
the child in the womb.  Nor for that matter are most of us who are quite 
physically dependent upon others for most of the raw necessities which we
incorporate into our organisms on the supposition that they are made
available to us.
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?

>
>Not necessarily so, see above -J.J.
Not necessarily so, see above.

Peace and Happy Advent.
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:59:48 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Myth exposed!!!

From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>
>1. ....it is impossible for a woman priest to exist ....

>2. ....women can not be ordained .....

>3. ....it is impossible to ordain a woman ......

Three times Marty denies womam's ordination, does this sound familiar
to anyone? :-) - J.J.
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Scapular
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:00:27 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

NOWHERE MAN <v201lrxa@UBVMSB.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> writes:
>        I've had a scapular since I was a kid, however I didn't even
>know it was a scapular until recently, and I'm still not at all
>clear on the history of it or what it's used for. If someone would
>please help me out, I'm dying to know more about it!

mike,
I also received a scapula as a kid. It was part of a first communion kit
which also contained a small missal and a rosary.

Word on the playground was that if you died wearing it, you would go
directly to heaven and bypass purgatory. In fact, when a classmate was
involved in a car accident, one of the first questions asked was "Was
he wearing his 'scapula'?". I guess for Catholic kids, a scapular was
equally important as clean underwear in case of an accident:-) -J.J.
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:02:29 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: electronic bible
              bible" (Dec 12, 12:36am)

Hi Tom,  My suggestion for you would be to get a good study bible like
the New Jerusalem Bible (study edition) and start by simply reading
the lessons for each sunday, and reading the footnotes that make any
necessary explanations.  You will likely find, as I did, that this
leads you off into wonderful tours of exploration following the
cross-references thru the whole bible.  And you will have a better
idea what the priest is preaching about if you have read the lessons
beforehand.  That is a start......

Have fun with it, Tom, don't make it work.  There is a treasure there
to be discovered.

Shalom,                                Len Howard
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Operation Rescue
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:41:19 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 6,  7:22am, "Edward J. Branley" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
}
} Hmmm...shame that other OR rescues in this country don't follow 'principles of
} non-violent action.'  Nothing like a video of an OR activist minister
} assaulting women in front of a clinic (as happened in Baton Rouge, LA) to
 shoot
} down that concept...
}
} Based on direct observation of OR in this part of the country, my statements
} are *not* misleading.
}-- End of excerpt from "Edward J. Branley"

I'll see your anecdote, and raise you one anecdote and one Friend-of-a-friend
:-).

        The one rescue I participated in was totally peaceful (on our
side).  The 4 or 5 friends I know who have rescued have never ever
been violent or seen violence on the part of OR (though much on
the other side).

        This was primarily in LA.

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: Contraception
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:58:03 GMT

In article <199212111724.AA09839@caritas.cotdazr.org> "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CA
RITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
>
>Actually, I would bet that the divorce rate among Catholics who practice
>NFP is lower than for those using artificial contraception.
>
A friend of mine with personal experience tells me that the divorce rate among
committed practitioners of NFP (whether Catholic or no) is around 5-10%--a lot
lower than the average.   For more info, contact:

Couple to Couple League
3621 Glenmore Ave
P.O. Box 111184
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-1184
voice phone (513) 661-7612
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:40:26 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

"Bryan D. Boyle" <bdboyle@ERENJ.COM>
>i(here we go again...:-))

Yes, a tough topic to dicuss without emotions erupting:-)

>define "legal" person.  When does one, in the eyes of the law become
>one?  When you are conceived, when birth (at whatever stage...) occurs,
>when you reach the age of reason, majority, middle age, or whatever?

Just based on my own experience, one is not allowed to list as a
person on your income tax form a child that was not yet born in the
tax year you are filing for. You also cannot receive a SSN for a
child prior to birth. Let's see, there is also the Birth Certificate
which is a "Legal" document which is a requirement for obtaining
most of our future "legal" documents.

>If it is an award for making it past the gestation period, with the
>medical profession eager to help the woman "take care of the problem",

I suppose it could be looked at as a reward to the egg and sperm that
"beat the odds" and survived to birth. I think the legal profession
sees it as the point where there is an easily identifiable individual.

>then obviously, the ministrations of Dr. Kervorkian are stepping over
>the line...oh yeah, I forgot, that is a "choice" too...i would venture
>a guess that from the beginning of civilization, the murder of fetuses
>has been considered a henious crime.  So much so that even the Romans,
>in their debauched state after Christ, considered it a capital offense.
>But, then, they were heathens, and not as up-to-date as we are.  Why are
>we so concerned about the whales, but we murder our own children, both
>before, and after, their birth.

Whales are also born mammals, I suppose if whales decided to abort
their young, they'd have to decide for themselves whether to make it
legal or not:-) - J.J.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:05:30 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)

john ocallaghan <jocallag@BACH.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>No doubt.  But the fact of legislation prohibiting murder, theft, and rape
>against individuals specified by the legislation is what constitutes those
>individuals as "legal" legal persons, i.e. the individuals to be counted as
>"legal" persons is established by the law.  Individuals are not "legal"persons
>prior to their becoming subject to a law either by prohibition or protection.

Yes, but not all "subjects" of laws are "legal" persons simply because of
the protection the law provides them. A prohibition on abortion would
probably fall into a classification like those of endangered species rather
than those that protect individual persons. (Once again, just a guess:-)

>So their "legal" personhood does not determine who is covered by the
>legislation.  The legislation constitutes who is to be considered a "legal"
>person.  The
>question then becomes why certain classes of individuals are segragated from
>protection by law, and thus not considered "legal persons."  As American
>history, as well as the history of other nations shows, such decisions are
>usually based upon the exercise of power, not reflection on the reality of
>human personhood which is prior to "legal" personhood.

The question is also what is an individual. Birth is an obvious point
where a separate individual exists. The moment a sperm cell and egg cell
meet is less obvious and requires a bit of "faith" to believe:-)

>But in any event, legislation protecting the "victims" in this case would
>constitute them as "legal" persons.

Not necessarily so, see above -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:35:49 GMT

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.921216115636.448@suzy.law.ucla.edu> frank lopez <FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU> writes:
>> john ocallaghan <jocallag@DARWIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>> >Do we or do we not have laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape, all of
>> >which seem to be matters of morality and values.  How do laws designed to
>> >prohibit abortion differ significantly in intention from these laws?
>>
>> The "victim" is not a "legal" person. (just a guess:-) -J.J.
>
>  Here is where the paradoxical, enigma wrapped in a mystery, thing
>comes into play.  A fetus does have a tenuous, at best, "legal"
>position.  An example of this would be the mother who is prosecuted
>for child endangerment due to drug use while pregnant.
>
>  Frank

A lawyer could help us out here, but I also believe they can inherit estates,
and have a court appointed guardian appointed for them to protect their interests in the settling of a will.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU