HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU (Liz Moreau)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:00:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-VMS-To: IN%"CATHOLIC%AUVM.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU"
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A

>I fully support the public school system and would feel that I had done my
>children a disservice by not sending them their.  For one, *nothing* that
>happens in the public schools can alter their relationship with God and their
>value systems, if the parents (my wife and I) have done our jobs correctly.

I fully support the public school system too ... with my tax dollars
:).  Each public school is each area is different.  I personally didn't
like the one my children would be assigned too, so my choice was
Catholic School.  I like the fact that the morals and values I am
teaching them at home are reinforced in school.  I like the fact that
academics are stressed and learning is encouraged.

>Secondly, if they are not exposed to other points of view while they're living
>at home and can ask us about what they means and how they might look at them,
>they will be ill-equipped to live life in these United States later when their
>parents aren't here to help them sort it out.

This is a worry of mine.  I went to a Catholic school also and
switched to a public high school.  I did have a hard time adjusting.
I felt like I was thrown into the jungle.  Kids talked different,
acted different, etc.  I had a hard time fitting in and felt like I
was so much older than kids my own age.  But then again, do we really
want our kids to fit into society today as it is, or do we want them
upholding Biblical teachings.

My children are involved in sports where they come in contact with
children from all over our city.  Hopefully, this interaction will
help them later on.

I just wish that our Catholic schools had more support from the
parishes and dioceses.  I feel its a real shame that all children
can't go (if they so desire) and that high school is really out of the
question for most people.  If we really care about our children and
the future of our faith, why not invest in it?

                                        Liz Moreau
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 14:43:37 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Women's Ordination
              9:15pm)

Thank you, Amanda, for your well thought out opinions on the basis for
women in the priesthood.  My own experience with wome priests in the
Episcopal Church is similar.  I see devoted, nurturing, capable
priests who happen to be women, and an occasional exceptional women
who can add a distinctly maternal nature to the priestly office.

Paul tells us there are neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female,
slave nor free, but all members of the Body of Christ.  I submit that
this concept carries over into the qualification for priesthood also.

Shalom,                              Len Howard OSL
                                     tas@pegasus.com
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Wingier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:31:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              17 Nov 1992 13:10:41 -0500 from <URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:10:41 -0500 <URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>Brent,
>I support both the liberal and conservative teachers in our public schools.
>I would contend that most of them do support "traditional Christian values"
>in thier own lives. Why bring in a special speaker if they can speak to the
>issue themselves. I think you have a wrong impression of what goes on in
>the typical public classroom, it is not some heathen orgy.

Actually, I didn't mean to make such a blanket condemnation of public schools.
My 7-12 grade education was in public schools.  As you can tell from my
postings, its been a touchy issue around here.  I know there are many, many
good public schools and teachers out there and I admire them.  I'm alarmed
however at some of the trends I'm seeing.  The total disregard for parents'
input into a sensitive subject like lesbianism in our area got under my skin
a bit.  The plus side is that last night 1200 parents held a rally and
meeting to support the school board that suspended the teachers.  I'm glad to
see parental involvement.  Too bad it is dividing the community so much.



>My children spend
>most of their time learning the three-R's, not developing pagan morals. You
>and Cal seem to give the impression that you can shelter your children from
>learning "bad morals" by sending them to a private school. I don't think
>that is a realistic nor a Christian attitude. If all the "good" parents

I hope you don't mean to suggest that sending my kids to a Parochial school
means I don't have a Christian attitude.  And yes, I do feel the Parochial
schools can make a difference with many children's attitudes and morals.  I
really wouldn't support Cal's suggestion of complete abandonment of public
schools by Christians on a national basis unless the situation continued to
deteriorate.  At this point it depends on the parents, the kids involved, and
the individual school involved.



>pulled their kids outof public school, those that would be left would not
>have the example to follow of the kids from "good" parents. This isolationist
>policy of education would not spread the Christian message to the young
>where peer pressure is one of the major contributors to behavior.


You make a good point J.J.  However, my first responsibility is the spiritual
direction and moral values of my children.  If I think they will be impeded, I
feel an obligation to do something about it.  As I said, I didn't mean to
denigrate the public schools so much.


>Then again, maybe I can convince you by saying that I am the product of
>18 years of Catholic education:-)

Yeah, I had problems listening in school too. :-)


>BTW, I thought the pope was elected:-) -J.J.

Not by popular vote of the masses -- yet.  :-)

Brent
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:33:09 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pastoral letter
              <humu!DARTMOUTH.EDU!J.Theodore.Schuerzinger> "Pastoral letter"
              (Nov 17,  5:51pm)

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:06:48 -0500
From:         URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Jesus and opinion polls

John O.
What I thought was pretty clear was that he was again making a bad analogy
by comparing what we know as "sin" to what we know as "tradition". But
thanks for trying to clear up what you thought was not clear. -J.J.
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:08:23 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU> writes:
>I've been curious about something since this debate started.  What do our Gay
>friends and their supporters think about the the many people who claim to be
>ex-homosexuals?  

Well, IMHO, it is possible that these people have changed their mind on how
they view their sexual orientation.  From my experience, sexual orientation
is not a choice between two states, but a gray scale from exclusively
heterosexual to exclusively homosexual.  If you were somewhere in between,
it is possible that you could convince yourself to act one way or the other
depending on what would make you more comfortable in the society at large.

Since many of these "ex-homosexuals" are probably experiencing a lot of
guilt about something over which they have little control, they may be able
to act straight, even if they aren't, by nature, exclusively heterosexual.
Whether these people are fooling themselves or not is a different matter.

I think it is dangerous to assume that homosexuality is some kind of curse
or disease that can be cured through exorcism or psychotherapy or what have
you.

-- 
  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.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab) 
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:15:04 CST
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>In article <...> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab) says:
>>
><<Stuff deleted>>
>>
>>Bryan, the tradition of Papal Infallibility may have a narrow
>>application, but for Catholics and others who are obviously less
>>sophisticated in the workings of the Church than you believe that almost
>>anything that the Pope says is Infallible, be it a homily, letter, bulla,
>>or what have you.  So, it is not incorrect to challenge the popular
>>perception of Papal Infallibility.
> 
>Do you have any evidence that the great masses of the Lumpenproletariat
>Catholics consider all papal statements to be INFALLIBLE as distinct
>from authoritative?

I remember reading a recent newspaper article (which means that it was
probably on the AP wire) that stated that many Catholics are confused as to
what statements are (merely) authoritative as opposed to being infallible.
So, while I cannot quote a more specific source, this is not something that
I dreamed up.

>Did you perhaps look it up in the Magisterium?  :-)

How droll.  As others have more politely pointed out, the Magisterium is
not a document, but simply the authority from which (by which?) the
Church teaches.  Not being an expert on Catholic jargon, I had inferred that
the Magisterium was something that had been codified, but evidently I was
mistaken in my inference.  <shrug> 

-- 
  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.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Priest shortage...
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:28:01 GMT

In article <sTwguB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>On a side note, that 'American pride' you mention isn't what worries the
>Vatican.  It's the American pocketbooks that do make a difference.  The Vatican
>ignores the US at its peril, like the United Nations does.  If financial
>support for the RCC dwindles here in the US, the shockwave will be felt all the
>way back to the Holy See.

Do you have any inside sources to back this up.  I guess I'm not so cynical.

>
>Wait.  Africans you say?  Won't work, at least down here.  I'll be willing to
>bet that there are many parishes which would fold before accepting a black
>priest on a regular basis.

My wife's family is part of a parish in Portland Oregon that in the early
fifties was placed under interdict for refusing to accept a black pastor.
Thankfully, my in-laws were not part of the parish at the time.
"Vee haf ways of makink you talk."

Peace,
John

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:41:05 -0600
From:         Joel Neisen <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Anti-Catholic minorities (Was: Reply from NBC re: Sinead
              O'Connor)

Haig Kasab writes:

> 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.

I don't know about Dartmouth, but here in the Twin cities you can be dismissed
for being a Christian.   Linda Rios Brooks, a producer for one of the
local TV stations, and active in the local Christian movement, was fired after
after a group of non-Christian employees claimed that they were not being given
the same opportunities Christian employees.  Of course, in the courts
there was absolutely no proof that they were being discriminated against,
yet her termination was allowed to stand !

joel
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Nature of the Church
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:01:12 GMT
Organization: CompuData Inc.

zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft) writes:

>On Nov 7,  7:50am, Jim McIntosh wrote:
>} Subject: Re: Nature of List
>} In article <CATHOLIC%92110317212958@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim
>} McIntosh) (that's me!) wrote:
>}
>} I would, of course, argue the opposite. A church which is not spirit-
>} filled and changing will not meet the needs of the people. When it does
>} not meet their needs, it becomes a burden and they stop attending. 

>they weren't treated as equals.  I would rather have nearly-empty
>churches that are faithful to God's word than full ones that are faithless.
>Heck, if I want that I can go to any New Age church (or any number of
>others I could mention).  And yes, I am getting used to the idea.

Gordon seems to have some kind of deathwish for the Church. Fight to the last 
man, but never change. I suppose such attitudes come from simple desperation 
and we've seen them come and and go in the history of man. The thing is, they 
change nothing. Change marches on despite the best intention of those who are 
the status quo. 

The trouble with this scenario is that such enforced change is one of tumult 
when it could be sweet and all encompassing. We use God as our weapon to 
protect what we feel holy simply because that's how it's always been. Real 
reasons are immaterial, the greater good of the Church and its people mean 
nothing. Our righteousness rules to the bitter end even while we are the last 
person to sit in an otherwise empty church.

The Vatican is short some $80 million dollars this year to operate. We are 
shutting our schools. We are loading the weight upon fewer and fewer people. 
When will it all collapse just so that we could be right?

Fred  




-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     'mans feet have grown/so big 
26 Warren St.   home: fred@icdi10.compu.com  that he/forgets his littleness'
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		Don Marquis 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
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 12:19:48 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anglican Uniate Church proposed
              "Anglican Uniate Church proposed" (Nov 20,  5:53am)

It seems quite precipitate to me for a group to be bolting the
Anglican Church without any opportunity to experience what happens
when women are ordained.  They are certainly not giving Archbishop
Carey's recommendations much attention with this action, but I suppose
that is what happens when people are zealots about one aspect of their
religion.  It is most unfortunate.

Shalom,                        Len Howard OSL
                               tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Divinity of Christ...Creation Theology
Keywords: divinity humanity creation theology
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:06:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.034806.1529@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dschenke@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis L Schenkel) writes:
>God made humans in God's image, but by sin we have distorted that image.
>Jesus is human like us.
>The only thing that makes him different is his sinlessness.
>His sinlessness is a result of his being able to completely self-actualize--ie,
>to be fully human as God intended.

This sounds like the heresy of Pelagianism applied to Christ as a human
being.  Namely that human beings have within their own power whatever
is necessary to achieve their salvation.  Christ just happens to be the
only one, it seems according to what you have repeated above.


>Thus, Jesus is the truest human reflection of God's image.
>Because he was fully human, he can be said to be divine.

This sounds like the heresy of Arianism, namely that Christ is not divine by
being, i.e. He is not one in being with the Father, but in a sense is the most
perfect of humans, and thus is the adopted, and so not completely divine by
nature, Son of God.

>
>He nodded his head in a kind of non-directive, warm fuzzy, understanding kind 
>of way.  I went on to say that, of course, since Jesus is the 2nd person of the
>Trinity, he must somehow be different from the rest of us.  He said, yes, and 
>they way he is different is in that he was fully human, whereas we are not.  I 
>said, yes, but Jesus was present at the beginning of creation--"In the 
>beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."  I 
>asked if he meant to say that Jesus was simply a creation and not somehow the 
>creator.  He said that Jesus was present at creation as a part of God's plan in
>the same way that we were present in the mind of God as part of his plan
>because God can perceive all time at the same time.  I tried one last time to
>clear this up to myself by stating that, of course, the only reason any kind of
>salvation or "self-actualization" is really possible is because Jesus died on
>the cross and made such a thing possible for us and that it is only through him
>that we can achieve this "full humanity" that we had talked about.  Father said
>that maybe people of other faiths--islam, hindu, etc--might not agree that
>Jesus is the only way to a full humanity, and that we need to be open minded.
>
>Help me out here.  I really don't understand how this cannot be heresy.  I'd
>like to think that Father is not guilty of professing something that is in
>error because he is a really nice guy and a lively preacher on Sunday.  But I
>suspect that there is something *wrong* in this magical mystical
>(warm-fuzzy-cosmic) bear stuff.  I just can't be sure.

Ask father if he believes that Christ is "begotten not made, one in being with
the Father."
Peace,
John

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:57:46 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      More discussion on O'Conner (was Re: "Feminazis" and the
              "abortion holocaust")

Andy (2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA) writes:

>So the fault of the insult lies not with O'Conner but with Roman Catholics,
>how interesting. Sounds like blaming the victim to me.

We are each responsible for our own reactions to what happens around us.  That
is all I'm saying.  In particular I did not blame anyone or say that Sinead
O'Conner was correct in her beliefs.  I do acknowledge that O'Conner was
attempting insult.  I never claimed anything else.  How each of us reacts is our
choice.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
 Smiths Industries, Inc.     |           tillman_brian@si.com
 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129    | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
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 14:23:20 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Anglican --> Catholic priests

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 the
} 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?

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.
Make it right before you make it faster.
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 13:57:27 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pastoral letter
              (Nov 20,  9:54pm)

Steve, my model for the Episcopal Church would be:
    God->laity->Deacons->Priests->Bishops, with each deriving their
authority from those on the left.  I realize it is upside down to you,
but that is the way it is in the Episcopal Church.  There are
obviously other aspects to the relationships but when we draw arrows,
the relationship of the laity and God is the important one, and God
does not only speak to the laity thru the Priest, but directly.
Deacons vow obedience to their Bishop but are not relieved of
responsibility for their own actions in relationship to God, and their
responsibility to the laity from which they were called.  It is a
TOTALLY different situation, which impacts greatly on how we think and
believe in the Episcopal Church.
Shalom, Steve                           Len Howard OSL
                                        tas@pegasus.com
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:08:42 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <BxtqoG.5pz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   You are making the assumption that the Magisterium of the Church is
>wrong, and these people in favor of women's ordination are right.

No, not "making the assumption"; allowing the possibility.

>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.

This, I am sure, is mischievous. Steve Creps knows well that the Church has
always made a distinction between truths which are _de fide_, the rejection
of which puts the individual outside the Church, and beliefs which are not
held to be known infallibly. To these we owe _obsequium religiosum_, but the
Church teaches that one's (properly informed) conscience takes precedence on
matters of right and wrong.

It seems that Mr Creps is raising the stakes to a dangerous level: if the
Magisterium can be shown to have been wrong over any matter, no matter how
trivial and no matter how clearly the pronouncement was flagged as not held
infallibly, then it is wrong about everything and Mr Creps's faith
evaporates. Plainly this will not withstand even a cursory scrutiny of the
Church's history. I hope that, nevertheless, Steve Creps will stay in the
Church. :-)

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU