HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Pastoral letter
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:18:15 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

> Ted, How long do you think it will be before the American Catholic
> Church splits off from Rome?........Just a thought for consideration.
> The ordination of women and stand on birth control are two areas of
> great disagreement.  I would not be at all surprised to see this split
> take place in my lifetime.  And I am 59 now.
> Shalom,                        Len Howard OSL
>                                tas@pegasus.com

Do you really think so?  I can see defections to the Episcopal Church, but an
actual break with the RCC?  I dunno.  There are so many religious orders whose
roots go back to Rome directly that I can't imagine the American contingents of
those orders splitting.  The amount of inertia involved here is so great.

Besides, most people don't see birth control as a 'voting' issue, if you will.
Most American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican on this one.  Ordination of
women is important to those women who are called to a vocation, but I can't see
whole parishes and dioceses seizing this as an issue upon which to base a
split.  The women called to a vocation are leaving the Church as individuals
anyway, to join churches where their vocation is recognized.

No, it'll take more than just those two to bring about a split.  Too many
schools, too much money and property involved.  Of course, when there are no
more priests in this country, maybe things will come to a head.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:11:53 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <...> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>>I don't see why the Church cannot change
>>to meet the needs of its people. What amazes me is why some people are
>>so afraid to change or try something new. -J.J.
>
>   J.J., why must it be assumed that the hard hearts belong to the
>hierarchy?  [...]
>   You are making the assumption that the Magisterium of the Church is
>wrong, and these people in favor of women's ordination are right.
>Let's continue this assumption to its logical conclusion.  If the
>Magisterium cannot be trusted to be right on women's ordination, then
>it follows that the Magisterium cannot be trusted to be right on any
>particular matter relating to the Church.  Therefore, anything anyone
>wants to believe is OK.  The Eucharistic need not be the Real Presence
>of Christ; it can be whatever we believe it is.  Christ need not be
>God; He can be whatever we believe He is (or was).
>
>   The problem here is that we cannot make something so simply by
>believing it is so or saying it is so.  When we try to do that, the
>only result is a lie.

   The Magisterium was written by men to codify their interpretation of God
and God's will.  Therefore, they made it so simply by saying it was so.
When the Pope issues an infallible statement defining the Church's position,
he has made it so simply by saying it was so.  The Pope is a man like other
men, why is he more correct than we?  We accept that the Pope has greater
insight on spiritual matters because (1) it's his job to be a theologian and
(2) because we believe it is so.  We accept Christ is God because we believe
it is so.

   Hence, we _can_ make some things so simply by saying or believing them.
And the Magisterium is no more or less correct than other thinking of men
but that it is believed to be more correct by the Church.  Because the
Church says that the Magisterium defines the way to go, that is the way to
go.  The Magisterium, then, is open to revision should the Church wish to 
revise it.  The Church, as a very reactionary and conservative force, is
unlikely to revise, especially under Pope John Paul II.

-- 
  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"  
        _The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
      The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:48:25 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Jesus and opinion polls
              4:21pm)

J.J., it means the hormones have kicked in and the adolescent girls
are more mature sexually, and they recognize instinctively the
situation, even if the boys do not.  If the girls are alone, the
sexuality is of no import, but with the boys it is very important.
I don't think, however that this difference can be carried over into
the ordination of women debate, since as is, with an entirely male
clergy, the sexuality only works one way.  If we have both male and
female clergy, there is opportunity for balance.  And, sadly, we
cannot dismiss clergy sexuality lightly, as we have sadly seen so
often.
    I have to go back to Paul....in God there is no male or female,
Jew or Gentile, slave or free, but one member of the Body of Christ.
And the call to orders should be open equally to all.
Shalom,                       Len Howard OSL
                              tas@pegasus.com
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:20:06 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: priest shortage

On Nov 18,  7:20am, "Edward J. Branley" wrote:
} Subject: Priest shortage...
} This weeks _Time_ magazine cover story, entitled "The Second Reformation," is
} quite informative.  What struck me as particularly interesting were some
} statistics concerning the number of male priests in this country.  The article
}
        I thought the headline was a bit much, to compare the current
situation with the Protestant revolt.  However, the articles were not
too bad.
} Now, the debate over the ordination of women aside, it seems to me that the
} Vatican and the American bishops should wake up and realize that just how much
} of a problem situation we have here.  Is anyone aware of any research which
 has
} been done to try to figure out just why the major decline in the number of
} priests?  Of course, instinct tells me that the celibacy requirement is
} probably the number one factor, but I'm wondering if there have been any real
} studies on this.

        Think for a minute.  If there has been a decline in vocations where
there previously was at least adequacy, it's smart to look at what has
changed that might have caused it.  Since the celibacy requirement has
not changed, it does not make sense to claim that it's the root of the
problem.
}
} While the debate over women in the priesthood should continue, it's obvious
} that it probably won't be resolved in the RCC by the end of the century.  That
} being the case, we need to initiate some drastic actions to increase the call
} to vocations.  If women are administrators in 200+ parishes, the problem of

        Hmm.  Well, I don't know about your parish, but most of the parishes
I have attended lately pray regularly for an increase in vocations (as to
I).

        Since the Anglicans are making themselves available as guinea
pigs, we can use them to see what happens to their numbers of priests.
In any case, if celibacy were really the problem then the Anglicans
AND the Orthodox shouldn't have a problem.  I don't know about the
Anglicans, but I believe the Orthodox are in the same boat as the RCC.

}-- End of excerpt from "Edward J. Branley"



--
* 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.
: is not an identifier
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Pastoral letter
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:51:26 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Does anybody have a copy of the pastoral letter the Bishops' conference
confirmed yesterday?  I wanted to see the exact wording of what was
being debated.  If you could either post a copy to the net or email it
to me directly, I'd appreciate it.

BTW -- When I read the AP's description of the conference, I got two
impressions:
1) If the letter was 'voted down' (if that's the correct term for it),
it would be one more step toward the ordination of women.
2) The Bishops are deeply divided about the ordination of women.

Personally, I don't think either of the above statements are true --
those were just my gut reactions on reading the article.  Is this just
one more example of our 'unbiased' media? :-)

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU

PS: Regardless of what J.J. and Mr. Yadallee (sp?) may think and hope,
the Church will NOT accept women as priests for a VERY long time, if
ever.
From: hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Catechisms, etc.
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:55:07 GMT
Reply-To: Henry.Troup@BNR.CA
Distribution: world
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <199211142055.AA01672@caritas.cotdazr.org>,
zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft) writes:
|>} horror of murder, but it may also be that we end up eating that hamburger
|>} on Friday

|>finest... *sarcasm*  Sorry, sin is sin.

But eating meat on Friday was once a sin, by the formal definition.  Now
it isn't.  One can either keep one's own conscience or not.  
                                        
Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
	       "Millions for defence, not one cent for tribute!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:23:57 EST
From:         Rod Anderson <anderson@ERIM.ORG>
Subject: Re: Separating our kids from public schools

I must agree with Cal Thomas with regard to the sorry state of public schools in
 general.  During
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CATHOLIC@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:29:20 PST
From:         J Scott Berg <ALHY@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Catechism
              23 Nov 92 20:42:39 GMT." <D0CB1D2AE0E11D29@SCS.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>

In your message of Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:42:39 GMT you write:
> Just a quick question for anyone who has information:
>
> Today a fellow Grad student (who knows I'm Catholic) came into lab and
> told me my work was sinfull because the Church just declared genetic
> engineering a sin.  Any truth to this or was this another misinterpritation
> cascade?  (I know the English version is'nt due for a bit)

I suspect a "misinterpretation."  I'm really not well informed on this
catechism beyond what I've seen in the papers (which is basically
useless), but I'm writing this so that you don't let his statement
disturb your work too much.

First of all, I suspect "Genetic Engineering" is far too broad a
topic; the Church would probably be more specific.  Second, if your
work is in "peaceful" (i.e., not biological warfare) dealing with
non-humans, I'm pretty sure you're ok there.

As far as research on Human genetics, I suspect any teaching the
Church may give follows easily from your own common sense.  The Church
has given the thumbs down to "artificial" methods of procreation
pretty much (I don't have the document in front of me), but that
probably has little to nothing to do with what you're doing.  I would
probably say that any research that could possibly have positive
results (cure of various genetically-related diseases, e.g.) is beyond
condemnation.

Keep at it, and may God be with you!

                                -Scott Berg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed here are, of course, my own and nobody else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Berg
email: ALHY@slac.stanford.edu
real mail: Varian Physics
           Stanford  CA  94305-4060
phone:  (415) 926-4732 (w)
        (415) 326-2631 (h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:02:19 EST
From:         Michael Longval <MLONGVAL@UDESVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New Catechism
              16 Nov 1992 00:12:00 GMT from <v201lrxa@UBVMSB.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>

.. in reply to the new cathechism...

Try to get a copy of the Canadian paper: The Globe and Mail, from Tues Nov
17 1992, they have an article on pages 1 and 2 outlining the new Cathechism.

Regards,
          Michael <<BONES>> Longval

========================================================
Michael Longval, MD   :  mlongval@udesvm               |
=======================================================|
SNOMED III Project            |   Sherbrooke Hospital  |
CHUS / Faculte de Medecine    |   375 Argyle St.       |
Uniersite de Sherbrooke       |   Sherbrooke, Quebec   |
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada    |   Canada, J1J 3H5      |
========================================================
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:10:33 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <1992Nov18.170557.17804@news.nd.edu> jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:

>3) His own conversion to the RC church occurred as a result of his reading
>of the Church Father's and the discovery in them of what amounted to an
>axiom for determining what the whole Church holds as of the original deposit
>of faith, namely "Ubi Roma est, ibi ecclesia est," (Where Rome is, there the
>Church is.)  By his own account, constantly reading this, and seeing appeal
>made to this by the Church fathers, eliminated the final obstacles to 
>joining the RC church, and he converted.

Quite so. What very obviously doesn't follow from your point (3) is the
curious idea that Rome hands out the truth to the rest of the Church; nor
that all that has ever been uttered from the See of Rome necessarily concurs
with the original deposit of faith.

>The point is, if we are going to appeal to Newman for our understanding of
>"consulting the faithful" we ought not ignore the whole of what he had to
>say about the matter.

I couldn't agree more. Newman's understanding of the Church takes the wind
out of the sails both of secularism and of ultramontanism. Here are a couple
more ideas of Newman's that I perceive to be relevant.

"He was sure of this: anyone who imagines the Church of Christ to be nothing
but Popes, bishops, clergy, will have to rethink his divinity {= religious
knowledge} if he reads his history of the fourth century. 'There were
untrustworthy councils, unfaithful bishops, there was weakness, fear of
consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless,
extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church.' He quoted
a phrase of St. Hilary of Poitiers: 'the ears of the common people are
holier than the hearts of the priests.'" [_Newman_, by Owen
Chadwick, Oxford University Press, 1983] The quotes from Newman's own
writing are from _On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine_, pp 77
and 85.

"If I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts (which indeed
does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink, - to the Pope if you please -
still to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." [_Difficulties of
Anglicans_ by Newman, p261]

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Pastoral letter
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:14:51 GMT

In article <9211192011.AA04973@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>
>Christ.   Without the people there is no Church.

Without the head, the body spasms in death.

Peace,
John
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Priest shortage...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:39:19 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

> Ed, There is no religion in Hawaii that predominates....as no ethnic
> group predominates.  There are many Buddhists due to the large
> Japanese population.  There are proportionately more Episcopalians
> than in most places due to the close connection of the Hawaiian
> monarchy with the Church of England. [The original Episcopal Church in
> Hawaii was a missionary district of the Diocese of London.  But the
> largest Christian denomination is still the Roman Catholic Church.
> That is the significance of the lack of seminarians.  We have
> Episcopal seminarians, but no Catholic.  There is also a relatively
> large population of Latter Day Saints here, likely due to the presence
> of the Mormon temple in Laie [north Oahu].
>
> Shalom,                        Len Howard OSL
>                                tas@pegasus.com

Ok, thanks for the clarification.  My first thought was that maybe no
seminarians in HI was not really a big deal, but now I see that it's different.
To have a large RC population with nobody training for the priesthood is indeed
a concern.



|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, 20 Nov 1992 13:41:40 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pastoral letter
              Pastoral letter" (Nov 20,  1:41pm)

Do you really think there is any impetus for an action in the American
Catholic Church such as was taken by the ECUSA?  Remember that we have
authorized ordination of women since 1977, and the Anglican Church
(our mother church) only approved it last week.
   But I guess there is a different authoritarian relationship isn't
there?  Seems too bad that a group of men half way round the world who
speak a different language can have such an influence on the American
Church, eh?

Shalom,                           Len Howard OSL
                                  tas@pegasus.com
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Pastoral letter
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:39:20 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

> Ed, I think the two issues of birth control and ordination of women
> are only the tip of the iceburg.  You state the real problem yourself
> when you say "Most American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican on
> this one."  How much more 'ignoring' is it going to take before the
> American Catholic Church gets fed up with trying to follow
> pronouncements from a body that is not listening to what the Body of
> Christ is saying.  And the lack of priests is going to push the issue.
>
> Shalom,                                 Len Howard OSL
>                                         tas@pegasus.com

Len, I don't see 'ignoring' the Vatican as being the same as the kind of
activism that leads to schism.  We don't have a Luther nailing his views to the
door or the church.  Look at the pastoral letter issue.  Rather than produce a
document that would encourage more activism, the bishops let it drop.  It seems
to me that it's more of a matter of when the Vatican is going to kick the
American Church out, rather than us leaving.

NPR's 'All Things Considered' had a theology prof from Notre Dame on this
afternoon.  His take on ordaining women was an interesting one.  He pointed out
that the Holy Father is a Slav, and is more interested in events in Eastern
Europe/Eurasia than in the Western Hemisphere.  This prof (can't for the life
of me remember his name) said that the Pope was more concerned with re-uniting
the Roman Church with the Orthodox Church, therefore he'll never bend to
ordaining women.  Perhaps a Pope from Western Europe or another continent would
have a different attitude???



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CATHOLIC@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:25:07 PST
From:         J Scott Berg <ALHY@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Anglican --> Catholic priests
              20 Nov 92 14:23:20 MST." <A64D8714F0E0E86A@SCS.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>

In your message of Fri, 20 Nov 92 14:23:20 MST you write:
> On Nov 18,  9:55pm, "Edward J. Branley" wrote:
> } Subject: Re: Priest shortage
> }
> } Hmmm...if this is the case, why have Anglican priests been accepted into th
> e
> } Roman Rite without being re-ordained?
> }
> }-- End of excerpt from "Edward J. Branley"
>
> To the best of my knowledge, those Anglican priests admitted under the
> 'pastoral provision' WERE re-ordained.
>
> Can someone find some good solid citations either way?
>

I was under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church recognized
the validity of Anglican orders because they maintained a valid
succession.  I may be wrong...

                                -Scott Berg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed here are, of course, my own and nobody else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Berg
email: ALHY@slac.stanford.edu
real mail: Varian Physics
           Stanford  CA  94305-4060
phone:  (415) 926-4732 (w)
        (415) 326-2631 (h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:22:35 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Ordination of women

On Nov 18,  9:54am, "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,    wrote:
} Subject: RE: Ordination of women yet again *sigh*
} Gordon Zaft (zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org) writes:
}
} >Women wishing to be priests does not equate to women being called by God to
 be
} >priests.
}
} Men wishing to be priest does not equate to men being called by God to be
} priests, yet the church treats it as such.

        No, the Church doesn't.  I have known several men who left the
seminary after realizing (usually with some helpful questions/instruction
by their spiritual directors) that while they thought they had a call,
in reality they did not.
}
} Gordon, your "argument" is a red herring.
}
}-- End of excerpt from "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,



--
* 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.
America's best buy for a nickel is a telephone call to the right man.