HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Question about divorce
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:15:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Please help me with a problem I'm having.

My parents have had what I consider to be an unhealthy relationship for
the duration of their marriage.  My mother more or less manipulates my
father, and he lets her walk all over him.  I first began to realize
this a few years ago, and I saw how much this was affecting me. 
Anyhow, I had been thinking (and I had been given this advice by some
of my good friends) that I write a letter to my father telling him how
I felt about all this.  I finally did this a few weeks ago, and
recently received a reply from my father.  He actually said he
understood how I felt!  (I guess God was looking out for me when I
wrote that letter.)

But there's still a problem.  I suggested to my father that in order to
stop Mom from walking all over him, he should stand up to her for once.
 My dad said that he has tried that, and that it hasn't worked.  If Mom
is unwilling to change, I don't want to see her keep manipulating my
father.  I think that if my mom won't change, then the only way for my
dad to stop the manipulation would be to get out of the relationship --
i.e. file for divorce.

This is where the problem comes in.  As a Catholic, and one who has a
strong belief in God, I know the Roman Catholic Church's vehement
opposition to divorce.  I have also always believed this position that
divorce is wrong.  My parents also profess a strong belief in
Catholicism, and have, from what I've seen, followed most of the
Church's beliefs on social and moral matters.

However, I think it would be wrong to let my father continue to suffer
in this relationship.  As a Catholic, I always believed that it was
wrong to let people suffer, especially one's own father.  On these
grounds, I want to tell him that the best thing for him, and perhaps
the whole family, would be to get a divorce.  On the other hand, I also
don't want to be seen as breaking up the family; nor do I want to tell
my father to do something that violates his moral beliefs (and mine as
well).

What should I do in this situation?  Feel free to pray that I do the
right thing.

Keep the faith,
Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:01:38 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Where There's Hope There's Life Euthanasia Kills Them Both

One of the most upsetting things about this case is the fact that *the guy in
question is conscious!*  This is not the case of someone in what everyone
believes to be an unrecoverable coma.  This guy is able to communicate.  He may
be physically and mentally impaired, but he's still able to function.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 11:23:05 CST
From:         CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      Travel tips requested

We will be traveling between MO and W VA over the week of Thanksgiving.
If anyone knows of any wonderful places to visit along the way, ie
Churches, bookstores, *anything* of interest to traveling (almost)
Catholics, please let me know.

Does anyone know if the Pittsburgh Center for Peace has any accomodations
for visitors? ( esp. a bookstore for books, tapes, etc.)
Thanks!
In Jesus and Mary,
Elizabeth
(we travel over 100 miles to a convent to buy books here in MO)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:09:30 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality
              11 Nov 1992 13:38:43 +1300 from <bthoms@WAIKATO.AC.NZ>

On Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:38:43 +1300 <bthoms@WAIKATO.AC.NZ> said:

> Firstly, it's best not to work too hard at proving Jesus as a historical
>figure. The first non-Christian reference, as far as I recall, is in the work
>of a Roman senator called Tacitus, who (to paraphrase from memory) talks of
>"the followers of a man called Christos" involved in civil unrest. Tacitus
>writes about half a century after the crucifixion. There is certainly no
>comparative contemporary source for Jesus (any more than there is for the
>Jewish exodus).

Say what?  Brent, If Jesus was not a historical figure, then our faith as
Catholics is meaningless.  Actually several first and second century
non-Biblical sources mention Jesus.  Thallus, a Samaritan historian mentioned
him in writings from 52 AD.


>The problem I have with all this pedantic trash is that we are determined to
>define God, so we can tell other people what to think and what God wants. We
>are so sure that God is made in man's image that we resist  our human souls
>being drawn to God.


To say that learning about the historical evidence of Jesus is pedantic trash
is as insulting as it is incorrect.  I'll say it again:  I and many others
could not have embraced Christianity without an ample supply of evidence as to
its correctness.  Many people have converted largely due to objective evidence.
 Those who rely solely on feelings as you are apparently suggesting, have no
anchor for their beliefs, and consequently believe all manner of things.
It is ludicrous to claim we more orthodox Catholics are trying to define God.
We base our faith on Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  If anyone is trying to
define God in their image, it is those who minimize the value of those sources,
and define their morality on how "it ought to be".

>
>If you truly love Jesus, and believe him, and believe in him, how could you
>speak of being "revolted" by people who are oppressed by society. I know the
>love the sinner/hate the sin nonsense, but the reality is that homophobia *is*
>a disorder, homosexuality isn't, but when people have to live their whole lives
I share many of your concerns about oppression Brent.  But if I am revolted,
it is revulsion towards sin in general, whatever the sin may be.  I think
most of us understand the need for love of our fellow humans, even though they
are sinful.  I certainly don't consider that "nonsense".

>Brent Thomson

Brent Winiger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b16
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:39:11 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Church of England & women priests

stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
> 2) Has there been a new consciousness about the status of women which is
> powerful enough to be the beginning of a new interpretation of God's
> revelation in Jesus, an interpretation which suggests that only in this
> century has it become clear that Jesus meant for the priesthood to be
> for both men and women?

I find this approach plausible.  The conception of women, and especially of
their relationship to men is, I think, demonstrably different today than it
has been at any time during the last two millenia.  Even if Jesus had chosen
women Apostles, I am not at all confident that (a) they would have been
accepted by the world at the time, and (b) that we would therefore know about
their existence, since we have no direct records of the actions of Christ and
the twelve.  Perhaps this was a message the world was not ready to hear, and
that God has spent the last two thousand years preparing it for...  there
have certainly been profound changes in how women have been seen in countless
other contexts...

> What signs are there of this new consciousness?

For one, even the Church now agrees that men and women share the same nature
and are fundamentally equal, an idea that would have been stark heresy a
thousand years ago.  The writings of the saints of the Church, from the
desert fathers through Augustine to Aquinas, and hundreds of others make this
abundantly clear.  There are writings by these Doctors of the Church which
literally unsettle my stomach when I read the passages concerning women.  It
is only comparatively recently that the justification for barring women from
the priesthood has rested on details of theology, rather than the conviction
that women were the tools of Satan.

[And as an aside for those of you who would like to claim that the Church has
always upheld the cause of women and considered them to share with men the
fullness of human nature, created in imago Dei, I will be happy to provide
counterexamples from the writings referred to above.  I am all too familar
with them.]

> 3) Is the male-only priesthood a "big deal" or not?

This depends greatly upon your point of view.  A women who honestly feels she
is called to sacramental ministry will think it is a "big deal" indeed, since
it sets her church in opposition to what the Holy Spirit is telling her to
do.  I know personally a number of women in this position, all of whom have
been torn apart by this type of conflict.  It is not an easy thing to feel
you must leave your church in order to follow your Lord.  It is a very heavy
cross to pick up and carry.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:25:57 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo

John sees an opening, he shoots, argh..... right though the heart:-)

OK, John, I admit it, I'm no Rhodes Scholar, but I was not trying to
imply that the Church intentionally keeps women from the priesthood
even though they "know" they are being called by God.
The point was 'how will we know if we don't give them a chance?'
Just my bleeding heart wimp liberalism flowing all over the net.
I admit it's just my own sense of justice which is offended by the
Churches proscription, and in that sense, my own salvation as I
get closer to leaving rather than staying dishonestly and causing
trouble. Maybe I'm just a shallow person, I haven't really explored
all the ramifications to the Church which would result if women were
ordained, I just see it as a 'good'. - J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 11:46:17 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:

> [Welcome to the list!]

Thanks! :)

> On Oct 30, 12:57pm, WERLING wrote:
> } Homosexuality hurts no one.
>
> 	What's your basis for this?

I'm gay.  My being gay hurts no one.

> The point about alcoholism (and
> homosexuality, too) is that drinking too much ("alcoholic acts" as it
> were) hurts the person AND society.  We make the same point for
> homosexual acts.

Why do you make this point?  What is your basis?


Andrew Werling on Planet Yip   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Wyoming?  Are you crazy?  I'm not moving to Wyoming.  What's up there?
Marlboro Men?" -- May, in _Fool_For_Love_ by Sam Shepard
From: URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:14:54 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

Brent,
Are there any groups out there we should hear from which contain
homosexuals who used to be heterosexuals until they realized that
heterosexuality to them was a sinful way of life? Somehow I think
what it comes down to is you yourself making whatever sexuality or
way of expressing your sexuality, sinful to you and yourself. Are
ther any expressions of heterosexuality which you may deem sinful
but not the next person? I'm still looking for an official Catholic
"What goes for heteros" rule book:-) -J.J.
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, 6 Nov 1992 14:44:58 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      my .sig

On Nov 5,  9:18pm, noao!75furlong@CUA.EDU wrote:
} Finally, I was amused by your .sig in another post which read "Your
} ideal lover is just around the corner" (or something close to this). Too bad
} that, if that lover should be of the same sex, nothing can come of it :).
}-- End of excerpt from noao!75furlong@CUA.EDU

	I should explain that I have a random quote in my .signature
that sometimes produces strange conjunctures.

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.
Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: post-election thoughts
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 05:52:24 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

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

>       Well, as we all know Bush lost.  Prop. 110 here in Arizona
> was defeated 30%-70%.  On the bright side I heard that Prop. 161
> (euthanasia) was defeated in California.
>
>       I feel a little lost and I'm very worried that we will lose
> all the gains the pro-life movement has made in the last few years.
> With Clinton basically promising open season on the unborn it looks
> grim.... but perhaps this is God's way of telling us that we haven't
> prayed enough; that we've tried too much to do it on our own instead
> of relying on Him.
>
>       My prayer is that the new President will live up to most of
> his promises -- but that he will see that 1.6 million abortions a
> year is a travesty and a crime in our society.
>

Gordon, there's still much that has been gained by the pro-life movement.  Just
because abortion is legal doesn't mean it has to be widespread.  Education
programs, awareness programs, and other positive activities have helped.  We
need to continue to expand the scope of these sorts of programs so that women
don't want to have abortions in the first place.

Gee, that's a nice sort of Republican concept, isn't it?  Keep the government
out of our lives and let the free market decide.  :-)



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 11:47:31 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:

> On Oct 31,  9:14pm, WERLING wrote:

> } When I was a kid, a kid who believed in God and accepted without thought
> } or feeling the notion of Christ, I did not understand how God could reject
> } anyone, and even more, I did not understand how an all-powerful and
> } compassionate god could allow anyone to go to a place called hell.  Keep
> } in mind I was working with the version of hell in which people suffered
> } eternally.
>
> 	What other version of Hell is there?

I'm talking the way I thought as a child.  And I'm talking basic sense
here.  God is not compassionate if he allows souls to be tormented for
eternity.

> Have you read the Gospels
> lately?  It's quite clear that not all are received into Heaven... but
> this is really another discussion.

Yes, I'm pretty well read on the gospels.  I know what the bible says.
But we have no proof that the bible is the "word of god."

> 	Second, I'm looking forward to hearing more from you (though
> from the above I imagine we will disagree).

Disagreement is what causes people to grow.  I'm here to grow.  Hopefully
everyone wants to grow.  I'm not here to be converted or to change your
mind.  Maybe we can learn from each other, rather than futilely try to
"change" each other.


Andrew Werling on Planet Yip   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Wyoming?  Are you crazy?  I'm not moving to Wyoming.  What's up there?
Marlboro Men?" -- May, in _Fool_For_Love_ by Sam Shepard
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Communion elements (was Re: Women's ordination yet again *sigh*)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:19:31 GMT

In article <9211082106.AA13517@chaos.intercon.com> Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM> writes:
>> Does this stop God from doing it with the grape juice and honey-nut
>> bread? No, of course not. It was God who chose the bread and the wine in
>> the first place, and God can certainly choose what God wants to
>> transform. All the church can say, is that it can't be sure what
>> happened when that poor bishop said the mass with the grape juice and
>> honey-nut bread. There is no assurance that it became Jesus's Body and
>> Blood. But the church also can't say with any certainty that it didn't.
>> That would be limiting God's power.
>
>Jim, I agree with you here (which should come as no surprise :)).  This is,
>
>It is the (often heated) assertions concerning what God does not (or worse
>yet, *cannot*) do that I cannot accept.  I am not willing to say that God
>does not or cannot transform grape juice or a loaf of sourdough into the Body
>and Blood of Jesus Christ.  I am not willing to say that God does not or
>cannot call women to sacramental ministry.  I am, in fact, not willing to
>place any limits upon the scope of the works of the Almighty.  It is not our
>place to do so.

   But how do both of you know that God does not say, "Do it this way,
or I _will not_ change the bread and wine?"  When bread and wine are
simply unavailable, one can hope God will change them into His Body
and Blood.  However, the attitude displayed by those who would
_choose_ to use these exotic elements looks to me like the arrogance
of telling God, "You _will_ change these pretzels and beer..."  This
is the kind of assertion that people of my mind cannot accept.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Legislating morality
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:07:46 GMT

In article <eharbin.721051698@convex.convex.com> eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.002119.10842@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:
>
>>   As a complete aside, the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois,
>>Idaho, has recently released that 1 in 11 rams are homosexual.  What are
>>the theological implications for this?  Aren't sheep God's creatures, and
>>moreover, not fallen?  Why should they also be imbued with this sin, as
>>it were?
>And tomcats eat kittens. Humans are so backward in these matters.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are?  We kill our young...(no smilie intended...) both before and after
birth...



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:45:03 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: arrogance
              12 Nov 1992 18:30:11 GMT from <15942@BRAHMS.UDEL.EDU>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:30:11 GMT Stephen Barr said:
>    I must confess to being completely amazed
> <much good stuff deleted>

Wow! that one is a keeper Stephen.
right on!

Brent
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:09:27 GMT

In article <921109155043.3f209a78@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>So God will never deem it time to call a woman to the priesthood? You don't
>seriously believe this, do you? Of course, you seem to remember being
>in your mother's womb and suckling her breast, I don't remember these
>events in my life, I might have been bottle fed by my father, and maybe
>that would explain my confusion on what simply must be the correct role
>model a particular sex of parent must have:-) -J.J.

P.S.
I did not say that I remember these things.  My claim was not about what I 
remember, but about what in fact happened.  Now those are two very different
claims.  On the other hand, if you want to restrict the effects of motherhood
and fatherhood to what a child consciously remembers, I suggest you read a
little or talk to someone who knows something about early childhood development.
As a thought experiment, however, if you want to restrict your development,
your character, and your life generally to what you consciously remember, ask
yourself how much of your development is left, how much of your character is
left, and how much of your life generally is left, when you've thrown out
everything except what you remember at this moment.

Ah but then isn't this generally the case with liberals, they don't have very
good memories! :-)

Peace,
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: 98yuwono@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu, catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:46:44 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 04-Nov-1992 1947" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anti-Catholicism and the pro-life movement

Leonardus Yuwono wrote:

>I do find it very uneasy, this prolife alliance with these fundamentalist
>protestants.  Their anticatholicism and pseudoprolife will alienated many
>Catholics with their violent tactics. The prolife movement should be
>a practice of nonviolent disobedience.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pseudoprolife".

I agree that we do better with prayer vigils outside clinics than with
rescues or blockades.  At the last vigil I attended, members of my
organization, NOEL -- National Organization of Episcopalians for Life,
sang songs and said prayers with Protestants and Roman Catholics and
recited rosaries with Roman Catholics.  I saw no anticatholicism except
from the abortion advocates who showed up with condoms on fake rosaries.

Here in Massachusetts, quite a number of Roman Catholics (even priests)
are on trial for tactics that go beyond what I'm willing to do.  The
violent tactics are not restricted to any one religion.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics should cooperate with Protestants for
God's greater glory, especially in saving His innocent children from
the abortion holocaust.

/john