HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:10:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.004014.10286@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:
>I would appreciate a more authoritative source, since what you suggest says
>that basically, the only sex that is allowed is "vanilla sex," or, as George
>Carlin characterizes it, "Man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick."

When I have the time, I will post more references.  For very authoritative
statements, you might start with Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and the 1977
Declaration on Sexual Ethics, as well as the Pope's  Wednesday sermon
conferences on Humanae Vitae; for less authoritative sources, you might
look at "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Woytyla (i.e John Paul, before
he was elevated to the papacy), "Sex is Holy" by Mary Rousseau.  There
are a couple others that I have to dig up, as they have long since been
returned to the library.

I think your paraphrase of what I wrote is a very sad misrepresentation of
what I wrote.  Nothing in my posting suggested that the so called "missionary
position," is the only postition allowed for sexual intercourse.  As married
people know, their are many variations on the theme.

If anything, your comments betray only that your understanding of Church
teaching rests on the authority of George Carlin.

>According to an AP story on the new catechism released recently in Paris,
>the following are still "grave offenses:"
>masturbation, fornication, pornography, adultery, polygamy, and unwed
>sexual union.  It seems to me that anything other than penile-vaginal sex
>between married persons is verboten, since sex must include the procreative
>act.  It is not clear what acts would fall on the "approved for foreplay"
>list, so I would be interested to see a more comprehensive source.

As I stated in my original posting, the position is :-) that any sexual
stimulation that is intended to result in ejaculation in the womans 
vagina is licit and in fact good.  Though I would add now, that does not
include stimulation involving masturbation, fornication, pornography,
adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, or bestiality.  Basically, husband and
wife alone, i.e. in private.  By the way for clarification, masturbation
is not the same thing as manual or oral stimulation of the sexual organs, as
the intention of masturbation is for orgasm outside of the context of vaginal
sexual intercourse.

Peace,
John

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: selection of popes (was Re: Church of England & women priests)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:20:09 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-13152]: clones

In article <1992Nov19.122842.15555@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
>    I also wonder whether at times the Pope was chosen by some
>secular authority, for example, has the Roman Emperor ever done
>that?  (Let me make this clear -- this is a real question, not a
>rhetorical question.)

I don't think it would be accurate to say that the Pope was chosen
outright by a secular authority, although there have been times when
the Holy Roman Emperor exercised a great deal of influence over the
College of Cardinals, even to the extent of presiding over conclaves.
I believe this latter situation prevailed around the 9th and 10th
centuries (or thereabouts...).  Naturally, even though he didn't vote,
the cardinals were reluctant to choose a man unacceptable to the Emperor
with him actually sitting in on the proceedings.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:36:52 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Jesus and opinion polls

Marty writes:
>You show a remarkable ability to miss or ignore the point.

Hey, thanks, Marty. Everyone needs to be affirmed every now and then.
Take care -J.J.
From: awerling@NMSU.EDU (WERLING)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:22:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992, Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425 wrote:

> Brent writes:
>
> >Does society, and do we as Christians, have an interest and
> >possibly a moral obligation to convey basic values to the many children of
> >irresponsible parents?
>
> Hmm...  Good question.  I'll have to chew on it for a while.

I somehow missed this remark, so I'll reply now...

If to you "basic values" means anti-gay, then if I ever adopt kids, you
better stay the you-know-what away from them.

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable
        uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."
                --Faxe, in THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, by Ursula K. Le Guin
From: dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: "ex"-homosexuals
Keywords: homosexual, homosexuality
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:04:38 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

Andrew writes:

(Stuff deleted)
"I don't know any of these people personally, but psychologists (etc) who
have spoken with these people have stated that in every instance, the
client still found men attractive...they just were no longer street
walkers, etc.

"I must also point out that, in my minimal research of "Exodus," a national
group, they focus on the action of homosex, not the state of being of
homosexuality/gayness/etc.

"Sure you can stop the action, but I don't believe that you can convert
your own inner core away from its inner nature/urges."

What you say may be true, but it is irrelevant.  The Church has never said that
to have homosexual urges is sinful.  A person cannot choose his or her urges.  
Sin is an act of free will.  Just as it is not sinful to be an alcoholic or a 
recovering alcoholic, yet sinful to abuse alcohol, so to is it not sinful to be
a homosexual while it is sinful to perform homosexual acts.

If a person can come to terms with his or her urges, and submits his or her 
life to Jesus as an offering, under whatever terms, and thereby chooses not to 
commit homosexual acts, there is no sin.  This is why (IMHO) the Church speaks 
of homosexuality as an illlness, in the same way that alcoholism is termed an 
illness.

I have a lot of respect for them men of Exodus.  I hope that I may someday come
to terms with my own urges to overeat.  We shall see. :)
-- 
Dennis Schenkel, Graduate Student    *****************************************
Ohio State University, English Dept  * Pax Christi Vobiscum...  from one of  *
dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   * those who "...wait in joyful hope..." *
    --My opinions are mine--         *****************************************
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 12:51:39 EST
From: Donna Foster <IO92143@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Cd. Mahony on the new Missal (LONG!)

My fiance wishes to point out, for comparison, the text of the setting
of the Lord's Prayer published by Weston Priory.

Our Father in heaven,
May Your name be held holy.
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done
On earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread,
And forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven
Those who are in debt to us.
And do not put us to the test,
But save us from the evil one.
For Yours is the Kingdom,
The power and the glory,
Forever, Amen.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:20:44 GMT

In article <921118131643.3fc05938@beast.cs.hh.ab.com> URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>Not that we ever disagree:-), but I would contend that the main argument
>against the ordination of women IS that "all those called by the incarnate
>Christ Himself" happened to be male. All others (apostles, St Paul, arguments,
>traditions) seem to take their queue from this sampling of twelve. You ask
>me for proof, but will only accept Scripture and/or Tradition. Scripture
>does not make a case for or against ever ordaining women, while Tradition
>always seems to me to be just a convenient way of brushing troublesome
>issues aside.

   According to Scripture, there were women who accompanied Christ and
the Apostles, but they were not Apostles.  If Christ intended women to
be priests, why were none of these women made Apostles?  Included
among them was the Blessed Virgin, the holiest of all God's creatures.
Why was she not an Apostle or priest?

> Is the sex of the person being ordained a big T or little t
>tradition and what difference does it make to our salvation? 

   It's a "big T."  The difference it makes to our salvation is that
if, as the Church teaches, women really cannot be validly ordained,
then any priestly sacraments they would attempt to minister would be
invalid.  If you still say to this what difference does it make, then
that is the same as saying that the priesthood is of no avail, that we
might as well discard it.

>I personally
>think that God sees all persons as equals, with the same human weaknesses.

   Yes, but not everyone has the same role.  This is certainly
scriptural.

>Prejudices are and have been rooted deep within human nature, and perhaps
>the deepest is found in the way men have treated women throughout history,
>including their portrayal in the Bible itself. I don't think the proof
>that Jesus intended or never intended there to be women ordained will
>ever show itself beyond a reasonable doubt, so all we can rely on is
>God to guide the hearts and minds of the Church and its people. It is
>encouraging to me to see other Christian Churches lead the way, and
>amazing that some in my own Church see this as some sort of slippery -slope
>on which our entire faith is based. - J.J.

   You speak of God guiding the hearts of the Church and its people.
But you _assume_ that He is not doing a good job of guiding those to
whom He has entrusted His authority, and that rather _some_ of the
laity have the Real Truth(tm).  That's nothing more than wishful
thinking.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab) 
Subject: Re: Anti-Catholic minorities (Was: Reply from NBC re: Sinead  O'Connor)
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:00:59 CST
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu writes:
>In article <...> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:
>> The majority works to take care of its own; it is the minorities that
>> need extra protection to avoid being oppressed by the majority.
> 
>Not at Dartmouth.  The homosexuals' student group (DAGLO) has been
>allowed to present its views freely, while those opposing homosexuality
>have been censured and threatened with suspension from the College.  
[stuff deleted]
>Meanwhile, those who say homosexuality is wrong (without even attacking
>individual homosexuals in words) get editorials published in the
>student newspaper saying how terrible they are for their 'homophobia'
>and have signs put up all over the place by groups like DAGLO
>vehemently attacking them for being 'homophobic'.  And you say the
>minorities' interests aren't represented?

   It seems clear to me that this is the exception rather than the rule.
Even here in liberal Madison, Wisconsin, where sexual orientation is a
"protected class" discrimination-wise, gays and lesbians are subject to
harassment and abuse.  And while the gay and lesbian community may be
mroe active near Dartmouth than in other areas, this does not diminish
the immediacy of their concerns.

   Although it is hard to tell from your one-sided account, my guess
would be that many in the Catholic community at Dartmouth often charge
gays with being anti-Catholic, which leads to further hard feelings.
Perhaps a better tactic would be to focus on the Catholic bashing, and
try to separate that from the sexual orientation of those doing the
bashing.  At least Catholics at Dartmouth don't have to worry about being
beaten or fired because of their religion, whereas many homosexuals *do*
have to worry about being beaten or fired because of their sexual
orientation.  Perhaps you could think of those who attack homosexuality as
being in the minority?  (What a concept!  I do dislike the acrimony between
the two sides, though.)

   But in the society at large, the message of the majority tends to
dominate, which is what I was talking about.  So, you do not have this
sort of situation occuring in, say, Manchester, NH, which is perhaps more
representative of the larger community.  While I am sure that there are
homosexuals in Manchester, I am certain that they feel that they cannot
be as active as the homosexuals are at Dartmouth.

-- 
  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.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 13:20:54 EST
From: Donna Foster <IO92143@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
 <BxtqoG.5pz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>

Someone was just commenting on whether we can trust the Magisteriam to
be correct. I just finished reading the first volume of "Xavier Rynne"'s
work of the Second Vatican Council. The entrenched conservatives had no
idea what they were setting themselves up for....
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Women Priests: WCVB-TV in Boston appears totally confused.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:04:24 GMT

In article <9211190411.AA03914@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> "John R. Covert 18-Nov-1992 2312" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:
>Tonight's _entire_ Channel 5 report on the decision of the NCCB to withhold
>approval of the pastoral letter on women:
>
>        The Catholic Bishops have refused to approve a document
>        which would have declared that women cannot be admitted
>        to the priesthood.  The matter will now be openly debated.
>
>Is the media confused about what is going on?
>
>Or is it deliberately trying to confuse us?

   "Never attribute to malice what can be blamed on stupidity."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: awerling@NMSU.EDU (WERLING)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:08:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 15 Nov 1992, J. Theodore Schuerzinger wrote:

> But 'Saturday Night Live' DID use a 7-second delay (or was it five
> seconds?) a few years back when Eddie Murphy was the guest host.
> Apparently they were afraid he might use some foul language.  Why can't
> they do that every week?

There should be more free language on network television.  Nudity too.
Though I'd like to see less violence.

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@dante.nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
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, 15 Nov 1992 23:43:23 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality
              11:37pm)

Amanda, I am with you.  I see this group being swamped with this same
debate/discussion that has been going on interminably in t.r.m.  Can't
we just let it stay there.......please?

Shalom,                           Len Howard OSL
                                  tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:21:35 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Jesus and opinion polls

Steve B.
I think I understand your points this time:-) not that I agree with your
view as to the "dangerous error" of our current dispute. I guess I am
trying to discern the differences in the sexes based on my own experiences.
(you know how us experimental physicists can be:-) With the risk of being
accused of missing the point again, let me jump straight to your point 'g',
"that girls must be allowed on boys softball teams". For the past eight
summers, I have managed both my son's and daughters' baseball/softball
teams. Between the ages of 6 and 12, I haven't been able to distinguish
any difference in ability to play these sports between girls and boys.
Ability, dedication and concentration vary all over depending on the
individual child, regardless of sex. At the end of last summer, I had my
first opportunity to deal with all teenagers when I volunteered to chaporone
Band Camp for a week (My son is a freshman and I'm one of those dads that
chaperone everything). During free time, I organized some softball games,
besides the physical strength change, what I noticed during the games was
that when only girls played, they 'chattered' in the infield just like
'real' ballplayers. In coed games, the boys "chattered" while the same
girls clammed up. What's this mean? I don't know - I'm off into
babbling mode again so have a good weekend:-) -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:21:30 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: polls and women priests
              priests" (Nov 18,  8:05pm)

Steve, your logic is circular.  If the only reason for not having
women priests is because we have never had women priests in 2000 years
and we are respecting that tradition, then we will never change.  And
the same logic can be applied to anything new or different that we
want to do.  At the time the language of the Mass was changed from
Latin to English, it could have been held that the Mass had never been
done in English before, and so we should respect tradition and
continue to do the Mass in Latin.  Same logic.  But the language of
the Mass was changed, for what was held to be compelling reasons.
   I submit that there may come to be held compelling reasons why
women should be ordained as priests, and the fact that it has never
been done before is not a reason for not making the change.

Shalom,                           Len Howard OSL
                                  tas@pegasus.com
From: kotmanm@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Matt Kotman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: Early Christian Church
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:32:58 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <BxKB2M.KJF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   I highly recommend reading _History of the Church_ by Eusebius
>(Penguin Classics), written I think ca. AD 400.  A good contemporary
>history of the early Church, it gives a good idea of what the early
>beliefs and practices were (you'll likely recognize them).
>

Read Eusebius, but also read about him and about his _History of the Church_.
Eusebius was a historian, but he also had his own causes as well and this comes
through in his writings. He had some Arian tendencies for one.
-- 
Matthew Jay Kotman   kotmanm@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu
 
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
			-Yogi Berra
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:36:58 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>

No Steve, it is Free Catholic mailing list, i.e. a mailing list for
those espousing a Free Catholic interest.  It has nothing to do with
sending anything free to people other than discussion.  And there is
plenty of that.   Enjoy.

Shalom,                      Len Howard OSL
                             tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:16:43 -0500
From:         URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: polls and women priests

Steve C.
Not that we ever disagree:-), but I would contend that the main argument
against the ordination of women IS that "all those called by the incarnate
Christ Himself" happened to be male. All others (apostles, St Paul, arguments,
traditions) seem to take their queue from this sampling of twelve. You ask
me for proof, but will only accept Scripture and/or Tradition. Scripture
does not make a case for or against ever ordaining women, while Tradition
always seems to me to be just a convenient way of brushing troublesome
issues aside. Is the sex of the person being ordained a big T or little t
tradition and what difference does it make to our salvation? I personally
think that God sees all persons as equals, with the same human weaknesses.
Prejudices are and have been rooted deep within human nature, and perhaps
the deepest is found in the way men have treated women throughout history,
including their portrayal in the Bible itself. I don't think the proof
that Jesus intended or never intended there to be women ordained will
ever show itself beyond a reasonable doubt, so all we can rely on is
God to guide the hearts and minds of the Church and its people. It is
encouraging to me to see other Christian Churches lead the way, and
amazing that some in my own Church see this as some sort of slippery -slope
on which our entire faith is based. - J.J.