HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: directions
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:41:59 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <930126131630.6160@C-H.BWH.HARVARD.EDU> RASCH@C-H.BWH.HARVARD.EDU writes:

>As the dragons flew away, N.O. Monaghan" <monaghan@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>
>was heard to whisper

>> I wonder if anyone else has noticed that it is perhaps those churches
>> and seminaries which are doing least to adapt to the modern world (by
>> that I mean, doing least to change fundamental beliefs, principles,
>> social outlooks and so on) which are the most flourishing.

>On the other hand, one could also argue that giving people a chance to
>engage in denial about the real world by isolating themselves from any-
>thing that engages them with the complexity and discomfort and ambiguity
>that's out there in the modern world indeed may well be popular.  So are
>pain-killing drugs.  People may well feel better by being sealed off from
>conflict, but I don't think it ultimately does them, or the world, any
>good.

>Joan Rasch   rasch@c-h.bwh.harvard.edu    FidoNet  jrasch@1:101/230
Those of us who take traditional stands don't feel particularly sealed
off from conflict. To the contrary, if you really want to get beaten
about the head and shoulders, expresss reservations about the regnant
point of view today, which is implacably 'progressive.' Here's a test:
you're from Harvard, a center of enlightenment. Stand up in a public place
first opposing abortion, then supporting it. See which position draws
the brickbats....



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jhalat@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (James Halat)
Subject: Re:      What is Truth?
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jhalat
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:00:06 GMT

In article <9301251858.AA19431@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>,         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, writes:
|>     Ray Lang (lang@cs.tulane.edu) writes:
|> 
|> >Some of what the Vatican teaches is the Truth.  Some of it isn't.
|> 
|>     Tell us then.  How do you answer Pilates question to Christ:
|> 
|>                      "What is Truth?"


Certainly not "what the Vatican teaches."

-- 
James Halat                    e-mail:  uunet!csfb1!jhalat          
The First Boston Corporation   -- I speak only for myself --
New York City
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 22:12:40 EST
From: Jeff Brooks <JEFF@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: The Real Presence

In article <930118090730.2e00d6c1@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
says:
>
>My goodness, Gordon, how you love to extrapolate. What my statement "tends"
>to do is leave supernatual and divine mysteries to God. Simply knowing that
>Christ is present would seem to be the important concept to teach rather
>than the absolute "how".

In this instance I would certainly say that "absolute how" is unattainable --
the Real Presence is a Mystery -- but some form of "how" or "what" is
quite important to know.  Like the question that named the manna, the
important thing here is: "What are the things that before were bread and
wine?"  Are they only bread and wine?  Do they contain bread and wine?
Are they become the body of the Incarnate Word?  Do they contain the
body of the Incarnate Word?

The answer is important here.  Since at least the time of Saint Augustine --
probably we have documentation back to the time of Saint Cyprian -- the
latria or adoration given to God Himself has been paid to the sacred
elements after the Consecration.  If the Church has the wrong answer,
she may well have been committing idolatry and teaching it for 1700 years.
God raised up prophets again and again to warn Israel against idolatry.
Has the Church done the same, and been left unwarned?

Simply knowing that "Christ is present" is not enough;  the modes in which
He is present are also important.  If you walk into the room, Christ is
become present.  Should I fall down in adoration?   Definitely not,
according to the teaching of Acts and Revelation.  If consecrated bread
and wine and brought into the room, what should I do?  If it is not
the true Body born of the Virgin Mary and I adore it, I commit idolatry.
If it is, and I do not, I ignore the immediate presence of my Lord and
my God under the sacramental veils.  How can I dare decide not to ask?
And how can the Church dare to leave me uninstructed in such a matter?

   Jeff

Xref: sparky bit.listserv.catholic:4525 alt.activism:21450
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: directions
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:15:09 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Jim McIntosh writes:

> What *will*
>happen is that more and more people will find the Church is irrelevant in
>their lives and they will drift away. Some will go to other churches, but
>many will join the great number of unchurched in this country. Ultimately,
>unless we can find out how to recapture the excitment of the Gospel message
>and make it meaningful to the people of today,

Actually, I think this is a good time to revisit the notion that we must make
the Church "meaningful to the people of today."  This seems to have been the
primary goal of liturgical and theological reform for the last 30 years.  How
succesful is the track record?  What can be learned from those efforts, what
has worked, if anything, and what hasn't?

In reality, the Church has always been in the middle of turmoil.  There have always
been splinter groups, there have always been doctrinal and political tensions,
and there have always been people who through the sheer
cussedness of human nature disagree, and rebel.  The letters of Paul describe such
shocking behavior.  It's only from the luxury of the late 20th century that we
can look back and reflect on a rather legendary good old days.  

> Ultimately,
>unless we can find out how to recapture the excitment of the Gospel message
>and make it meaningful to the people of today, the Church will get smaller
>and smaller until it will simply disapper.

One message of hope is that Jesus said that he will always be with his church,
and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  If that message means anything,
it means that the church will survive.  In fact, I'd go farther and say that if
the church can't survive, it probably shouldn't, since it wouldn't be what it 
always claimed to be.

	Dave Bernard
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:12:16 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Real Presence

Michael, I feel your concern about what Joan said, and understand that
it is not what you believe.  I happen to hold with Joan, and have felt
very comfortable on many occasions receiving the Body and Blood of
Christ in a Roman Catholic Mass.
    I would suggest a parable that might show us where our problem is
in resolving our apparent impasse.  Suppose there was a church in a
small town in a desert region.  All the people in the church wore
sunglasses to protect their vision, and since the church was very
open, they wore their sunglasses in the Church.  In fact they were
never without their sunglasses.  They looked at everything thru their
sunglasses.  There were two shops in town that sold sunglasses.  One
shop owner said that amber colored sunglasses protected your eyes
better.  The other owner had many studies that showed that blue
sunglasses gave better protection.  About half the people in town went
to each shop, and thus the town was divided into two groups, those who
wore blue and those who wore amber.
    On Sunday an writer from a religious magazine visited the church,
and after the service was talking to the people about the new form the
wafers had taken that were used in the celebration of the Mass.  He
said their was a lot of problem getting the color right.  Some of the
people said "Oh they have a nice light blue color."  and others
insisted that "They are amber, just like they always have been."  The
writer went away shaking his head about the people who argued about
the color of the host rather than just taking off their sunglasses and
seeing that it was whiter than snow.

Shalom,                                     Len Howard
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Edward Schileebeecx (sp?) writings & Justification by Faith...
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:27:25 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <9301251849.AA17701@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM (Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50 25-Jan-1993 1335) writes:
>
>    If you want orthodox Catholic writings, don't read Edward Schileebeecx.
>    He is not orthodox at all.

This is utter rubbish.

> You would be better served by the various
>    books published by Ignatius Press (2515 McAllister St., San Francisco,
>    CA 94118, USA; call 800-537-0390 and ask for a catalog).

For 'You' read 'the intellectually stagnant Pius-IX-knew-best faction on the
right of the Church'.

>    One book that I would suggest is Cardinal Ratzinger's....

Yes, thank you, no further questions.

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: The tragic tale of a moral theologian.
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:42:14 GMT

     I just read this interesting snippit in the
journal FIRST THINGS:


     "Consider the plight of Dan Maguire. Having left
behind his solemn vows as a priest, he has been for years
a lay theologian teaching at Marquette University in 
Milwaukee. He married Marjorie, also a theologia, and
together they wrote a book arguing that abortion is a
moral choice for Catholics. Over the years, Dan Maguire has     
been a star speaker for Catholics for Free Choice and groups
advocating the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. With
Mr. Maguire, it seems, almost anything goes. But now he
has divorced Marjorie and married another woman. The 
first Mrs. Maguire is very unhappy about this. She has
left theology and become a lawyer. She goes around to
meetings where Dan Maguire is speaking and takes the microphone
to call him an "adulterer", a "spiritual rapist", and
other rude things. Mr. Maguire went to court and got an
injunction to keep the first Mrs. Maguire from disrupting
his speaking engagements with "innappropriate and obscene
behavior." The judge stipulated, however, that Mrs. Maguire
has every right to express her views if the events include
a place for comments by the audience. Dan Maguire, a fervent
civil libertarian, has long been prominent among those
Catholics calling for an open Church in which everybody
should have their say. Well, not exactly everybody, it now
appears."

    What a sad trajectory. 
                         Steve Barr.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jhalat@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (James Halat)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary... 
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jhalat
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:34:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.132657.3625@erenj.com>, bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
|> [...]
|> The Church does not call for anyone to condemn homosexuals.  THey are 
|> people, deserving of our love.  It does, however, call us to condemn 
|> homosexual activity, just as it condemns extramarital sexual activity.
|> No difference.  No homophobia, or whatever else the popular agenda 
|> says there is.  You can raise all sorts of smoke screens, or complaints,
|> or whatever else you want to.  But trying to force a secular reasoning
|> for why something should be accepted by the Church, when people reject
|> the Church's reasoning of secular issues in return, is inconsistent
|> and hypocritical on the part of society as a whole and people as
|> individuals taking that position.
|> 
|> The Church can no further accept a contradictory or inconsistent stand
|> that anyone else can, nor should she be forced to or expected to.


To some degree the Church should not be forced or expected to accept
outside stands.  However, the Church should not complain when after
it goes to City Hall to try to force its stands into public social 
policy ( like it did with the NYC Gay Rights Bill ) and the result is 
for Gay activist groups to bring their stands into the Church.
I do not accept the Church PUBLICLY teaching its beliefs then hiding 
behind the cloth when it is challenged.  Additionally, no gay activist 
group (except perhaps some gay Catholic groups ) wants to change Catholic 
teachings.  They just want to challenge the teaching outside the church.  

To another degree, the Church is not immune at all to some public scrutiny.
Would you make the same comments if Church teaching was to sacrifice
the occasional infant to the volcano gods?  Would it be wrong to try to
point out to the church that this might be an incorrect teaching?



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


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:35:38 GMT

In article <9301261417.AA132672@oldgwenbnc> mlj@EVOLVING.COM writes:
>
>         Let's assume, for a moment ( and a moment only :-) ), that the "Spirit"
> > is calling on us to set aside yet another of our prejudices
>
>How would you explain the Burst of insanity that the "Spirit" would move/stir
>the hearts of men to engage in an act that is detrimental and non-productive
>to the human race?

I know a number of homosexual couples who are involved in monagomous
loving relationships.  They are church goers and are active on a civic
level.  

I find it hard to describe them as "detrimental" or "non-productive"
to the human race.

I fail to see the damage done by any relationship founded in love
and mutual respect.

Perhaps you should invest more than (a moment only :-) )  and search 
that inner part of yourself where the Spirit speaks to the hearts of
mankind.  

Though the Bible and Church tradition are a source of inspiration, 
they are also a record of historical atrocity and inhumanity.
Most people would, wisely, never consider doing some of the things
written in the Bible.
In moving ahead we have set them aside.
Christ Himself set aside much of what went before.
Other things were, perhaps, beyond the bounds possible in 
that setting in time.

We must believe that the Spirit continues to lead the hearts of mankind.
Change is possible.
Change is necessary.

Search your heart, and see if you can personally deny human dignity
and still profess to believe in the Love of Christ.

Steve Otlowski-

>I'm sorry, but I agree hole heartedly with:
>>> And to what do you attribute this startling revelation?  The misinformed
>>> judgement of ex-catholics or protestant theologians, or homosexual
>>> activists, or the media, or _your_own_opinion_?
>
>--mlj


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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:05:30 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Condemnation of homosexual acts

On Jan 25,  6:48pm, Raymond Lang wrote:
} Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
} In article <9301251521.AA20456@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>,         "Greg Wolff, MISG,
} ICS::, writes:
} >
} >     Thus, in this climate, we need to affirm in the public forum what the
} >     Church teaches about sexuality and that what the Church teaches is the
} >     Truth.
}
} Some of what the Vatican teaches is the Truth.  Some of it isn't.  What
} they teach about homosexuality isn't.
}-- End of excerpt from Raymond Lang

Gee, what ever happened to 'we are Church'?  Now it's 'they teach'?  Hmm.
By agreeing with the teaching of the Pope and the Bishops, I am therefore
not part of 'your' Church?

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.
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      directions
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:55:24 GMT
Organization: UW Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redx.cac.washington.edu

In article <2B64B1DF@postoffice.ucc.american.edu>,         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
|> What *will*
|> happen is that more and more people will find the Church is irrelevant in
|> their lives and they will drift away. Some will go to other churches, but
|> many will join the great number of unchurched in this country. Ultimately,
|> unless we can find out how to recapture the excitment of the Gospel message
|> and make it meaningful to the people of today, the Church will get smaller
|> and smaller until it will simply disappear. We, who are charged by Jesus with
|> going into the world to live and preach His message, must discover how to
|> stop what is increasingly becoming a reality.
|> 
With the increased concern with meaning in life, the growth of meditation and 
spiritual growth centers etc., you really think so?  Or is the change, perhaps,
the loss of "social Christians" for whom the church is heritage not belief?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:53:39 PST
From:         "Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50" <wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: pius xii on evolution

    "Ricardo R. Rodriquiz" <rrrodrig@PSC.LSA.UMICH.EDU> writes:
>Not having a proper dictionary of theological or philosophical terms,
>would someone out there be kind enough to define polygenism.  Many
>thanks.

    polygenism    = The belief that there were more than two (2) first
                    parents.  ie- Adam and Eve where not the only forbears
                    of the human race.

                                            In Christ the Savior

                                            Greg Wolff
                                            wolff@ics.enet.dec.com
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Role of the Papacy (was Re: Homosexual acts)
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:37:51 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <9301211622.AA04547@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> wolff@ICS.ENET.DEC.COM (Greg Wolff, MISG, ICS::, MSO1-1/J50) writes:
>    The Infallibility of the Church (taught by Vatican Councils I & II)
>    protects the supreme teaching authority of the Church (the Pope), and
>    the Bishops IN UNION with him, from teaching that which is in error in
>    Faith and Morals.  No such protection is accorded to the rest of the
>    faithful no matter how many are in agreement with the proposition in
>    question.

This is not correct. The Church is "habitually infallible" -- the whole
Church (including all of us) is protected from final fatal error by the
constant action of the Spirit in us all. The College of Bishops, in
addition, is endowed with a "charism of infallibility" that protects it at
the rare moments at which it solemnly defines a doctrine; the Pope shares
this 'charismatic' infallibility when he pronounces infallibly. At the
heart of these charisms is the underlying habitual infallibility of the
whole Church. Outside of the specific instances of doctrinal definition, the
Bishops and the Pope have no 'charism' of infallibility, and no habitual
infallibility. Only the Church as a whole has it. 

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:45:57 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 27-Jan-1993 1545" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...

>So, Greg, if the "teaching authority of the Church" or the "supreme pastor"
>were to take a stand, it would be that a chaste homosexual should not
>be discriminated against for they are no different than a chaste hetero-
>sexual in God's eyes.

J.J. -- The Church has taken a stand, and I have posted the relevant extracts
from the new Catechism, including references to documents from the teaching
authority.  I'll post it again, but I don't have time to revisit the
translation from French into English:

Chasteti et homosexualiti

(2357) L'homosexualiti designe les relations entre des hommes ou des femmes
qui iprouvent une attirance sexuelle, exclusive ou pridominante, envers des
personnes du mjme sexe.  Elle revjt des formes trhs variables ` travers les
sihcles et les cultures.  Sa genhse psychique reste largement inexpliquie.
S'appuyant sur la Sainte Ecriture, que les prisente comme des dipravations
graves(1), la Tradition a toujours diclari que +les actes d'homosexualiti
sont intrinshqement disordonnis(2);.  Ils sont contraires ` la loi naturelle.
Ils ferment l'acte sexuel au don de la vie.  Ils ne prochdent pas d'une
complimentariti affective et sexuelle viritable.  Ils ne sauraient recevoir
d'approbation en aucun cas.

(2358) Un nombre non nigligeable d'hommes et de femmes prisentent des tendances
homosexuelles foncihres.  Ils ne choisissent pas leur condition homosexuelle;
elle constitue pour la plupart d'entre eux une ipreuve.  Ils doivent jtre
accueillis avec respect, compassion et dilicatesse.  On ivitera ` leur igard
toute marque de discrimination injuste.  Ces personnes sont appelies `
rialiser la volonti de Dieu dans leur vie, et si elles sont chritiennes,
` unir au sacrifice de la Croix du Seigneur les difficultis qu'elles peuvent
rencontrer du fait de leur condition.

(2359) Les personnes homosexuelles sont appelies ` la chasteti.  Par les
vertus de mantrise, iducatrices de la liberti intirieure, quelquefois par
le soutien d'une amitii disinteriressi, par la prihre et la grbce sacramentelle,
elles peuvent et doivent se rapprocher, graduellement et risolument, de la
perfection chritienne.

(1) Cf. Gn 19,1-29; Rm 1,24-27; 1 Co 6,10; 1 Tm 1,10.
(2) CDF, dicl. +Persona humana; 8.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU