HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Encoding: 42 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:10:00 PST
From:         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Lies about the Consecration

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:14:12 CST Elizabeth said:
>The urgency of the consecration being that, although we know God's will
>is to be done, the longer the consecration takes, the longer the world
>will suffer. And possibly the more souls that will live and die in
>error and lose eternal life. This is why I care to learn if it truly
>has or has not been done (consecration).

A couple of days I posted a short list of questions about consecrating
countries. I was completely serious about wanting to know something about the
matter. I was raised in the new church, and in the past have asked about
practices in the old church with which I am not familar. These have included
rosaries (is the purpose to chant (as with a mantra) in order to get into a
meditative state, or are the words themselves important (ie, you should think
about each word in each prayer as you say it)?) and novinas (I had heard the
name, but weren't sure what they were). In both cases people who remembered
them were able to respond, and I appreciate that.  It was in this vein that I
was asking about the effects when a country is consecrated.

From your answer above I gather that once we consecrate this particular
country, all suffering will stop. Well, then, since there is still suffering
in the world, it appears that this consecration was not done. In fact, since
it appears in order to consecrate a country the pope just has to say that he
is doing it, we ought to do the consecration just to see if suffering does,
in fact, stop.

Or have I missed the boat once again?

Oh... and I have one quick prayer request. My Secular Franciscan Fraternity
is meeting tomorrow to decide on who we are going to elect in elections next
month, and to discuss the future directions we want to travel as Franciscans.
Your prayers, as we attempt to determine God's call for us, would be
appreciated.

Peace and all good!

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:26:51 GMT

In article <9301120039.AA02902@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>
>If I must simplify what my posting was saying for the sake of those
>who have trouble getting to the kernal, what I said was that "There
>are theologians writing today who think we have to consider the
>reality of today's experience when making pronouncements based on
>scriptural prohibitions."  In other words "Revelation did not end with
>the death of the last Apostle."

Len,
I don't know if you answer my question in some forthcoming article in the
queue, so I'll repeat it here.  If you have answered it elsewhere, don't
bother to answer it here.  Are you saying that it is a teaching of the Epsicopal(or Anglican) communion that the public Revelation did not cease with the death
of the last apostle?

Thanks and peace,
John

P.S. Of course you are under no obligation to answer at all.
>Shalom, John                            Len Howard - tas@pegasus.com

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: EWTN
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:03:08 GMT

In article <k21TwB2w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
|> Was wondering if anyone had any opinions regarding EWTN and its programming.
|> We're just starting to get EWTN for more than prime time.  What I've seen of
|> it, I'm not overly impressed.  The daily Mass from Mother Angelica's monastery
|> in Alabama is ok, but some of the lecture shows are downright boring.  So, I'm
|> hoping that some of you are familiar with some of the priests they have doing
|> these shows, that way I can find out the easy way if any of these guys are
|> worth watching.

EWTN has become uneven over the past few years, though some of their speakers
are still excellent.  I'd recommend anything with the following: 

	Fr. Benedict Groeschel: formerly a Capuchin, he has founded a new
		Franciscan community in the Bronx; a psychologist, he has 
		authored an excellent book on stages in spiritual development,
		"Spiritual Passages".  I can't listen to him without being 
		confronted by the gospel.

	Fr. George Wm. Rutler: a student of Newman who, like him, converted to 
		the Catholic Church from Anglicanism.  The last erudite priest in
		America.

On the other hand, some of EWTN's programs are promoting the dubious apparitions
at Medjugorje in Herzegovina, which will prove to be embarrassing for the
network if the Church ever gets around to decisively condemning the apparitions
as false.  (Roma eterna, civitas Vaticana sempiterna.)  ;-)

---
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
No job ever made me as happy as poverty and unemployment have. -- Allan Adler
See you at the March for Life Jan 22!

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL11]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 638
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:48:24 -0800
From:         John R Mudd <jrm@PGROUP.COM>
Subject:      Re: EWTN
              "CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET" at Jan 6, 93 02:20:24 pm

>
> When you consider that
> those who have had a vision of hell cannot even begin to convey
> its horror (other than to say that they would not wish even the
> most evil of men to go there),

Oh, I don't think it's that hard to convey that horror.  Look around you
and notice that everything that you can see, touch, feel, and envision
exists because God wanted you to experience it.  Now remove God from the
picture.  Feels kind of empty, doesn't it?

I was taught that Hell isn't so much a physical place, it's the separation
from God for eternity.  And that *is* a pretty hellish thought, with no
pun intended whatsoever.

... John
From: cgoodson@SUN.CC.WESTGA.EDU (Carol Goodson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: contributions
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:09:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
              home" at Jan 6, 93 11:20 am

> >*****if I were a member of your church, and this happened to me, (i.e., the
> >visit to ask for more money) I'd quit instantly.
>
> Well, you must not be Catholic then. This is pretty much SOP for fundraising.
> All the various dioceses along the East coast are in some kind of fund raising
> effort trying to get the coffers a little fuller. It all started with
> Bevilaqua in Pittsburgh. They hired a fund raiser. It worked. He got promoted.
> And now one diocses after another is doing the same 3 to 5 year pledging
> thing.

***sorry to disillusion you, but I am indeed Catholic.  We are of course
invited and encouraged to pledge a certain amount each year (which I do), but
no one ever comes around to our homes and tries to talk us into giving more,
or at least I have not heard of it.  I would find this very offensive.  As
you can see, I live in the South; perhaps such aggressive customs have not
yet made it down here...and I hope they don't.


********************************************************************************
Carol Goodson/ Coordinator/ Off-Campus Library Services
Ingram Library/ WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE/ Carrollton  GA  30118
(404) 830-2360 (Voice) --  (404) 836-6626 (FAX)
email: cgoodson@sun.cc.westga.edu
       cgoodson@uga.cc.uga.edu
       cgoodson@uga.bitnet
       70253.1146@compuserve.com
********************************************************************************
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: EWTN
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 18:40:01 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET writes:

> On Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:06:30 CST Edward J. Branley said:
> >Well, I wouldn't say that I object to the Medjugorje apparitions, I just hav
> >problems believing in their legitimacy.  The main reason I agree with the
> >characterization 'dubious' is that they don't resemble the circumstances of
> >of the other Marian apparitions recognized by the Church.  At Fatima and
>
> This may be an indication of the seriousness with which Our Father is
> attempting to get our attention.
>
> >Lourdes, for example, Mary appeared for a short period of time and left a
> >tangible sign of her presence at the conclusion of the apparitions.  Medjugo
> >has been going on for over 10 years.  I don't find belief in the apparations
>
> >objectionable, it's just that faith has not moved me to be a believer.  Comb
> >that with the Church's refusal as of yet to sign off on the apparitions, I'm
> >skeptical.
>
> Our Lady has said that when she ceases to appear at Medjugorje, she will
> never again appear on Earth. So it is not surprising to me that she would
> continue to appear until the work is done. And there *will* be a permanent
> sign left when the apparitions end. As for the Church, it is my understanding
> that it is not supposed to make a judgement until the apparitions have
> ended. I didn't hear that the Church was "refusing" to do anything. ?
>

As I said, Medjugorje doesn't fit the pattern.  As to the Church, the local
bishop has publicly refused to sanction the apparitions.  Here in New Orleans,
Archbishop Hannon did not publicly acknowledge his beliefs re Medjugorje until
he retired, lest he contradict the official line on the apparitions.

Anyway, if there is indeed a physical sign from Medjugorje, I'll just change my
name to Thomas :-).



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:56:21 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: help for a questioning couple
              questioning couple" (Jan  8, 10:44am)

John, one thing I have noticed about people who are looking for the
'spark' in the church is that they are looking in the wrong place.
They are looking outside themselves, for someone else to provide the
stimulus for their relationship with God and each other.  The
encounter weekends may help, but I would suggest more that they look a
bit harder in their own parish for activities that are going on.  I
find it hard to believe that there is not a bible study group extant,
a prayer group somewhere, or at least a young adults group.  And if
there is not, then maybe it is the job of this intelligent young
couple to start one.  In order for Christ to live in us we first have
to die to self.  And that usually means getting out of the self and
centering on others.   Just a thought from afar, John.
Shalom,                            Len Howard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:38:01 CST
From:         CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject: Re: consecration of Russia
              5 Jan 1993 16:57:00 EST from <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>

On Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:57:00 EST Alfred S. Chavez said:
>Elizabeth writes:
>>Pope John Paul II has made a consecration, but it has not been done as
>>requested by Our Lady at Fatima.
>>There is an ongoing effort to get the consecration done as requested,
>>namely the Pope and all the bishops of the world consecrating Russia,
>>not the entire world, but this has NOT been done yet.
>
>Of all the byproducts of the great 50's expectation that was built up around
>the third secret of Fatima, this latter day insistence over an exact
>formula that MUST be followed, OR ELSE, is most puzzling.  It reminds me of
>the pharasees in the gospel, insisting on sticking to the letter of the law,
>and in so doing, missing its spirit.   As though, perhaps, there is more
>power in the formula than in the Virgin and her Son.  Focussing on a formula
>smacks of superstition and it is the reason IMHO that a lot of normal folks
>get turned off when they hear about it.

According to Sr. Lucia, when she asked Our Lord about why the *exact*
consecration had to be followed, He replied it was because He wanted
there to be no question in anyone's mind that when the consecration
is finally made it would HAVE to be attributed to the efforts of His
Mother. Don't have the exact text of the quotes here, but could dig them
up if you would like to read them.

>His Peace,
>Fred Chavez

Amen! O:)
Elizabeth
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: a miracle story
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:46:21 GMT

    A friend of mine told me the following story about
a lifelong friend of his named Joe. (Not his real name).
Joe was raised a Catholic but did not practice his
faith much anymore. He is married to a Polish woman
who is a strong atheist. Now Joe has some strange
congenital heart problem whose medical name I have forgotten
that meant that his heart was dying. He needed and obtained
a heart transplant. It was successful and he is still going.
Sometime later his wife and he conceive their first child.
This thing he has is inheritable, so his wife wants an
amniocentesis done and insists that if the baby's heart
is found to be defective they will abort it. Joe is
strongly against this, but they have the amnio. The
doctors say the baby is perfectly healthy. No problem.
When the baby is born, however, it has the defect after
all. The wife wants to sue the pants off the doctors, hospital
etc. for "wrongful birth" (isn't that a hateful expression?).
Husband Joe wants no part of that. Joe wants to baptize
the baby. Wife being very anti-religious will not permit it.
    Now, the baby not only has the problem with his heart,
but has it much worse than Joe. His heart is dying, and 
doctors say it has only a few days to live. Still Joe's
wife will not allow Joe to have the baby baptized.
So one night Joe somehow sneaks into the baby's room--
this is in the middle of the night--- armed with a Rosary
and some holy water (he seems to have thought you needed
holy water to baptize with). He prays over the baby and
baptizes him. 
    The next day the nurse goes in to check the baby's
heart function (or whatever it's called). Instead of being
17%, as the day before, it has jumped to 37%. (The numbers
are from memory, the jump may have been even more).
The nurse cannot believe it and has the monitor checked.
It is not broken! Indeed the baby's heart overnight has taken 
a dramatic turn for the better. It continues to get stronger
for a couple weeks, and then the doctors tell Joe the baby
is completely fine and he can take him home!
    I should emphasize that Joe had refused to go along
with either the abortion idea or the wrongful birth suit
idea. 
    A miracle? Who knows. But it sure sounds like one
to me.        Steve.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:40:13 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Newman and Norfolk
              "Newman and Norfolk" (Jan 10, 12:53pm)

Martwe discussed John Henry Newman yesterday in our Liturgics class in
connection with the Oxford movement.  He was attempting to change the
practice of the Church of Engla in the ninteenth century.  The
practice at that time was Morning and Evening Prayer.  In the city of
on on Christmas of 1800 there were four cmmunica for eucharist.
Nobody had received Confrimation and thus few were able to receive.
Newman wanted to change that and return the practice of the Church of
England to what it had been about 200 years earlier.  His efforts met
with little success and much (and violent) opposition.  He thereupon
went to the Church of Rome with his efforts and was (conditionally)
ordained in the Roman rite, where his efforts are today memorialized
by the many Newman Centers on college campuses.

BuI certainly agree, Marty, Newman is the gurof rebellion by those who
would change the contmorary church.

Shalom,                                 Len Howard
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:02:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: EWTN

Yesterday there was an exchange concerning the consecration of Russia and
the campaign by many Catholics, some lead by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, to have
the Pope "do it right."  There is a brief column in the December 1992
Columbia magazine published by the Knights of Columbus, (a more
conservative and loyal group you will not find) written by Bernard
Casserly, that effectively, IMO, rebuts the campaign.  Elizabeth, if you
would send me your fax number (privately or on net), I would be glad to fax
you a copy and would be interested in your take on it.
His Peace,
Fred Chavez
achavez@umsa.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:54:14 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU> writes:
>J.J., please tell us what basis you have for believing that Scripture may not
>have been correctly transcripted. Also, given your significant doubts about
>the veracity of Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the
>Church, please tell us why you believe anything at all about Christianity and
>in particular, the Catholic Church.  While I'm asking - Have you examined any
>of the volumes of apologetic works which deal with the subject of correct
>transcription of the Bible?

These are rhetorical, I presume.

But I guess I'm amazed that people can put so much faith in the printed words
of other people even when the physical evidence contradicts them.

>Thanks, Brent

You're welcome, -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:34:20 -0600
From:         Joel Neisen <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

>         Is this true ? I thought by "nature" we are without sin.
I was just reading a about that this morning, some things that did and
did not change as a result of 'the fall'.  I beleive the author
(Doug Sherman, not a Catholic by the way), was trying to make the point that
God's intention was that our nature ould be without sin
(created in His image), but that nature became corrupted because of the
sin.  (He actually goes on to explain how the nature of work is changed as well)

joel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:18:46 -0500
From:         Michael I Bushnell <mib@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      help for a questioning couple
              8 Jan 1993 13:56:21 HST
              <9301090007.AA12070@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Moreover, if they are looking for a spark, and haven't found it after
diligent search, they can pray the office.  The Catholic office isn't
much harder to understand than the Anglican one, and it's easy to get
a hold of.  If they expressed interest to their priest, I expect he
would be delighted to help them.  He might even want to pray it with
them.  (Catholic priests are obliged to pray the office.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:17:30 -0700
From:         "John W. Woolley" <jww@EVOLVING.COM>
Subject:      Re: Are all saintly pronouncements right ?

Angelo J. Paguia <ajpg1322@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU> writes:
> A not so recent discussion with a co-worker regarding St. Augustine's
> pronouncements on abortion (okay to the first trimester or something
> like that--feel free to correct me), viewed from recent Church teachings
> show that St. Augustine was, to put it gently, not so right on abortion.

> Ever since, I have had a slight skepticism on viewing everything that
> a saint says as being right. Reading the above Augustinian quote by
> Martha reminded me of this, since I did not find the quoted view as
> agreeable in that it seems to reduce the weight of smaller sins. I'm
> probably reading it wrong anyway, but can someone enlighten me on the
> comprehensive correctness of saintly pronouncements on anything ?

First, the Church certainly doesn't claim that anything any Saint has
said or written is authoritatively true.  Their opinions generally carry
more weight than other people's, but even St. Augustine made some
mistakes -- many of which he pointed out in his own book _Retractationes_.

Second, it is simply untrue that Augustine ever in any way said that
abortion is okay, at any point.  I have his Omnia Opera, and would be
happy to look up any reference anyone cares to give.  But I guarantee
ahead of time, you won't find any such wicked nonsense there.

My guess is that Angelo's co-worker was misremembering, misunderstanding,
or misquoting St. Thomas, who discusses (somewhere -- I can look it up
if need be) the question "Whether abortion is homicide?"  His conclusion
is that up until the time the foetus is truly alive (which the best
scientific opinion of his time put at a couple of months after
conception -- he quotes Aristotle on this), abortion is a very grave sin,
but not actual homicide.  If Aquinas had had our scientific knowledge,
it's clear from his reasoning that he would have concluded, as we do,
that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is homicide.  But even given
mediaeval medicine, he still holds that it is gravely sinful.  And this
is the passage pro-abortion types like to quote to Catholics, saying,
"See, even Aquinas supports a Woman's Right to Choose!"  Dreck!

So, no, not everything every Saint writes is true.  But no, neither the
great bishop of Hippo nor the Angelic Doctor ever wrote that abortion
is "okay".
----
Fr. John Woolley         For al so siker as In principio,
jww@evolving.com         Mulier est hominis confusio, --
                         Madame, the sentence of this Latyn is,
                         "Womman is mannes joye and al his blis."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU