HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:09:12 EST
From:         "Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM>
Subject:      Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
              92 10:12 am

>
> Don, since the new Book of Common Prayer was writtin by the Episcopal
> Church of the United States, the swearing of allegience to the
> King/Queen of England have not been a part of the prayers.  We have a
> familial relationship with the Church of England, but are not bound by
> their beliefs, nor they ours.  So no
> 'conflict of national interest' will apply in the ECUSA.
>
> Shalom,                           Len Howard
>                                   tas@pegasus.com
>


I thought that the Anglican Church was the Church of England, forgive
my misunderstanding of Protestant Church relationships.  I tend to
concentrate on the RC and Orthodox Churches.

My point though remains... what is this allegience?  Does membership
in any organization headed outside the US disqualify a US citizen from
public office.  Membership in the Church of England, headed by the
Queen came to mind.  I could have, maybe should have, said a member of
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, since their head is a
Russian.

The other point was that priests vow obedience to their bishops...
there local bishops.

To be perfectly honest, the original statement concerning a priest
having a allegience to a foreign power and therefore should be
excluded from public office, IMHO was an example of anti-catholic
sentiment in the US, and since I can pledge allegience to Lenin and be
elected, the point is kind of silly.

-Don Magee

trent!djm@jolt.att.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Queens school board
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:31:00 GMT

In article <921214103344.28000eef@beast.cs.hh.ab.com> URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>On the other hand, Saturday night, my wife and I attended a party at a
>close friends' home in the next parish which does have a parish school.
>Taped to their refrigerator was a letter from their third grade son thanking
>the mother for not aborting him. The letter was quite lenthy, and having
>known the boy from birth, was obviously dictated to him or copied by him
>from the board. So I guess the brainwashing begins on both sides at an
>earlier than would seem necessary age.
>
>From what my local paper reported on the New York issue, the fuss was over
>two books, one about so-and-so has two mommies and the other about some
>father's boyfriend. There wasn't any mention of teaching the basics of
>anal intercourse to first graders, and knowing the paper's lust for
>sensationalism, I would think that if that was the issue, it would have
>been reported. It seems the idea they are trying to get across is that
>homosexuals are real people too. -J.J.

I would applaud the parish school for taking that stand and teaching
moral and ethical values in line with Catholic (assuming it is a R.C.
school) tradition and teaching.  Brainwashing?  I don't call teaching
children that there is more to life than personal "choice" and teaching
personal responsibility brainwashing.  Save that for planned parenthood,
the abortuarium businesspeople, the new administration in Washington,
and the TV networks. (i used to work for one of the nets in the news
dept. - so I speak from personal observation.)

The point is not whether that topic should or should not be taught in a
public school, but whether the an elected local board of education 
can be fired by an administrative hack that is hired by the board.  If
that is the case, then why don't we just cut out the crap and admit that
elections are a sop to the populace, and the elected officials have no
real power.  Mr fernandez has no right to make a decision about teaching
or providing a curriculum covering a moral question.  If he has that
right, then the Church as the right to question government and demand
the same accountability that the pressure groups and professional
victims demand of the Church.

He should worry
more about the 50% dropout rate, guns in his schools, open drug dealing
in the hallways, and the lack of qualified teachers.  Physical survival
is a bigger question that the hacks in the NY city education
administration business should be concerned with rather than whether
"Heather has two mommies..." or the mechanics of anal sex.


-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Opinions are mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer    |PVT/ASEL/IA
bdboyle@erenj.com  |(908) 730 3338
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:47:03 GMT

Oops.  I meant to credit Len Howard, not Len Horn, with his good comments
on Baptism.
 
Sorry,

Bob
--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:57:08 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1fc2

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


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:33:53 -0500
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.1-10, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)

>  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.

Or how about a drunk driver who smashes into a car driven by a
pregnant person, the baby is killed but the mom is okay.  I have read
about cases like this where the drunk is charge with manslaughter for
killing the baby.

                                        Liz
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Myth exposed!!!
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:18:25 GMT

In article <921215152005.2020fbb4@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>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.

I doubt it.  I hope not.  Don't think you can equate the two, JJ...



-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Opinions are mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer    |Internet Firewall Administration
bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see the Net...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:08:47 EST
From:         "Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM>
Subject:      Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
              92 5:55 pm

> civil human authority (and in the Catholic Church's case, a "foreign" one).
>

        Wow, and I thought that my bishop John Cardinal O'Connor was
an American.  You learn new things everyday. :)

sarcasm mode off...

Don Magee
trent!djm@jolt.att.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:47:04 EST
From:         "Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM>
Subject:      Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
              92 10:35 pm

>
> "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."
>
>
> Peace,
>
> Amanda Walker
>

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.

I as an member of the Catholic Church in New York have spoken some of
the bishops here numerous times, and the Cardinal twice.  I don't
remember any of them being "foreign powers" as you put it.

Also, you mention allegience, I said obedience (which as I see it is
much stronger).  What exactly is allegience?  Would a practicing
Anglican have allegience to the Queen as the head of his Church and
therefor be excluded, even though he is American, from public office?

A Catholic layman is bound just as strongly to the alleged "foreign
powers" as a Catholic priest, so should all practicing catholics be excluded?

To what extent should the "conflict of interest" in the "foreign
powers" be taken?  Allow only atheist native americans into office, or
would them belonging to an indian nation exclude them too?

-Don Magee
trent!djm@jolt.att.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: re- petting,etc... thanks for the post, steve
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:06:08 GMT

In article <Bz5uF8.7vJ@acsu.buffalo.edu> v074r7ce@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (I DON'
T REALLY FEEL BROKE UNTIL I'M OUT OF STAMPS...) writes:
>thanks for the information- by the way what is this Human Vitae I keep hearing
>about???

What is HUMANAE VITAE?

An encyclical letter issued by Pope Paul VI on July 29, 1968, which condemened
the use of artificial measures to prevent conception and births. This accords 
with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and also with the 
long-standing teachings of the Church concerning the intrinsic immorality of 
artifical contraception.
     In addition, the encyclical sets forth a basic "Christian anthropology" of
the meaning of human sexuality as lived out in marriage.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:54:56 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: baptismal rits

[err, that should be 'rites', sorry!]
On Dec 14,  8:22am, noao!DGPAZ@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU wrote:
} Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
} 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?
}-- End of excerpt from noao!DGPAZ@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU

No, it's not possible to baptize twice.  I imagine (I'm sure Ed
will respond) that this was merely a 'ceremony supplied' situation
where the child, godparents, etc. could be present and celebrate
the baptism.



--
* 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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:18:36 -0500
Reply-To:     esler@apollo.hp.com
From:         esler@APOLLO.HP.COM
Subject:      Re: Queens school board

Jim McIntosh writes:

    > On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:39:46 -0500 Kevin Esler said:
    > >Personally, I believe it is unjust that a person who wishes to educate
    > >his children at a Catholic school, gets none of his tax dollars
    > >directed toward that education.
    >
    > But that's not the purpose of the tax, is it?
    > ... The tax is for the purpose of running
    > a public education system -- not for the purpose of educating one
    > particular person's children.

Jim,

    I must admit don't know what the purpose is, formally.  Is this in
the constitution or something ?  If not, then it is at least arguable,
that the purpose of "taxation for education" could be construed as to
provide universal education to all citizens.  This would not preclude
government support of private schools.

Cheers.
--
Kevin Esler //hewlett-packard/cso/stg/std/clo/mll
(MA Language Lab) esler@apollo.hp.com (508) 436-5979
From: v201lrxa@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (NOWHERE MAN)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Scapular
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:44:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	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!
	Also, a *very* belated thanks to Ms. Mayo for sending me
a copy of 'The Secret of the Rosary'. It's been very useful in
helping me pray the rosary, and I recommend it to anyone who has
not read it.

mike
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Nature of the Church
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:12:30 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92121502280437@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>It's sad. It's so easy to call in the marines and shoot a couple bad
>guys to solve the problem. It would be so tough to try and figure out
>how to deal with the problem in a nonviolent manner. But that is what
>we are called to do by our faith.

   Jim, the Somalia situation is not so much calling in the Marines as
it is a matter of calling in the police.  Let's face it, the cause of
starvation in Somalia, as it often is anywhere there is starvation, is
people's actions.  There is usually ample assistance in such
situations; however, the assistance is blocked by those who don't want
it to reach its destination (political reasons) or just plain stolen
(greed).

   The people causing starvation in Somalia are little more than
criminals, mercenaries at best.  The goal of sending troops to Somalia
is not to kill people; rather it is to protect the starving people
from bandits.  Yes, a couple of people have been killed in the
process, but those people were armed and tried to attack those who are
there to protect the starving.  People are killed by police while
committing crime in probably every country in the world.  Should we
therefore disband our police departments?  While we're trying to
figure out how to solve the problem in a nonviolent manner, how many
more will die of starvation?

   And I don't accept that merely sending in troops is _not_
nonviolent.  Was sending troops to Florida after the hurricane, or to
Los Angeles after the riot, also violent?  In Somalia, it only becomes
violent when the bandits decide to make it so.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 16 Dec 1992 17:15:46 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Myth exposed!!!

In article <921216111345.2020c6ba@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
says:
>
>Karl C Schudt <kschudt@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> writes:
>>Hmmm, make up an inappropriate analogy, followed with a smiley then your
>>initials, does this sound familiar to anyone? :-) - K.S.
>
>Flattery will get you nowhere, Karl:-)
>
>But back to the original myth, if a pope refers to something as "of hell",
>wouldn't that appear to be "condemning" that something?

No, not to anyone who recognizes that there is a difference between a formal,
official condemnation and an expression of personal dislike.

>...or is the pope allowed to "joke" about hell:-) -J.J.

Of course, why not?  And who would forbid it?

-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
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 19:46:37 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:-)

   If I may ask, under what species should they be classified?

>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:-)

   Question: what is the difference between a baby born normally at
nine months, and one who, due to some emergency, must be delivered at
n months by Caesarian section?  Question 2: how do we know what n is?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:50:43 -0500
From:         Bill J Good <billgood@WORLD.STD.COM>
Subject:      Re: Devotion to Mary

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 lhh@LCUXLP.ATT.COM wrote:

> 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

This book is, imho, NOT for the new person. It also would not be
considered mainstream by the majority of people. His work is actually used
by anti-Catholics in order to criticize Mariology.

Bill Good
INTERNET: billgood@world.std.com
GEnie: BILL.GOOD (Roman Catholic Category Leader)
WORLDNET: RELIGION Moderator (e-mail for details)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Subject: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:00:42 GMT

In article <199212140833.AA00537@caritas.cotdazr.org>
        "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:

>         It's not *political* activity, it's *moral* activity.  There is
> a very big difference.  That difference is part of the reason NOW hasn't
> yet succeeded in taking away our tax exemption (though sometimes I
> think we'd be better off if we DIDN'T have it).

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.

To be honest, I feel that all legislators are trying to impress their
beliefs on the country, but the anti-lifers are just being hypocritical
about it.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."
From: zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Abortion
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:14:24 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)

On Dec 15,  9:53pm, "Marc E. Talbot" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
} There's an important distinction though.  The "anti-lifers" (I'll use your
} word if you'll use mine :-)) are trying to impress on the country their
} moral views that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.
} They are not, however, making that choice for you.
} The "pro-unwantedchildrenwhomaygetlifebutnosupportaftertheirborners" want to
} make that choice for everyone, regardless of the consequences.
}
} The distinction comes in that no legislation by "anti-lifers" is going to
} force you to do something you don't want to do (except maybe going to jail
} for blocking clinics).
}-- End of excerpt from "Marc E. Talbot"

The anti-lifers seek to deprive of life and limb people who would
potentially be my spouse, son/daughter-in-law, priest, doctor, lawyer,
researcher who cures the common cold/cancer/AIDS, etc.  Furthermore,
it's possible I could be deprived of a grandchild due to their efforts
(this is all hypothetical for now, I'm not married).
        Beyond the wanton destruction of innocent life is the cheapening
of the value of life, the oppression of women, and the anti-lifers'
attempt to impose their moral view on me.

        Their moral view is, of course, that one cannot impose one's
moral views on others.  A bit of a contradiction, that.

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: jhalat@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (James Halat)
Subject: re:  Queens school board
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jhalat
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:50:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.214057.27057@erenj.com>, Bryan D. Boyle writes:
|> 
|> Perhaps so that they can be inculcated early, and at an extremely 
|> impressionable age, about "alternative lifestyles" and acceptance 
|> of abortion, cohabitation, homosexuality, and moral relativism as
|> a legitimate form of expression.
|> 

Hmmm. Inculcate early.  Seems like you are afraid of exactly what the 
Church does to get its message out.  Perhaps that's the best reason 
for the City of New York to want to open up some new ideas in our
public schools; so that people can properly choose from a wide list
of early inculcations, rather than be forced just one, which at the
moment happens to be yours.  

Cheers-
jim halat


-- 
James Halat                    e-mail:  uunet!csfb1!jhalat          
The First Boston Corporation   I speak only for myself.
New York City                                                         





-- 
James Halat                    e-mail:  uunet!csfb1!jhalat          
The First Boston Corporation
New York City                                                         
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU