HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:33:05 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)

Steve Creps (creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) writes:

>Roma locuta, causa finita.

Rome has said it, so that's the end of it?  God did plant a brain in each of our
heads.  He intended us to think for ourselves.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: women priests (yet again)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:08:10 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 <edjans01.718305667@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:


>Huh.  Funny.  At one time (April 12, 1633) the church began a series of hearings
>against a man who stood against something that the Church put its foot down
>on.  Precisely, the issue of Heliocentricity and its famous professor Galileo,
>were silenced by the Church.  The Church had official teachings that were 
>considered sacred regarding Terra being the center of the Universe.  It's
>impossible, the Church shouted!  We are the most important in the whole of
>Creation, therefore the Universe must be centered around us!  Today, we all
>know that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong.

	Please interpret this neither as a defense of the burning of
professors (in a later post, perhaps!) nor of terracentricity (charming
though the notion is).
	However, as matter of accuracy: the problem the Church had with
Galileo was not Heliocentricity. In fact (not unlike the case with a
round world) a Heliocentric universe was the subject of classical
speculation. The Ptolemaic model was the subject of constant revisions to
'save the appearances' as observational technique improved. In principle,
the Heliocentric model was just a major extension of an old story.
Where Galileo got in trouble was over a more subtle (and philosophic rather
than scientific) point: was what he was saying True, rather than true. That
is, the Church was untroubled by an assertion that here we have a model
of the universe that experimental data justifies. It was troubled by a 
assertion that it was more than a model (or that Truth could be had
out of mere phenomena).
	From that point of view the attitude of the Church was a more
contemporaneous view of science than Galileo's. We've lost the certitude
that experimental data with an explanation constitutes final truth.
	And in any case it wasn't an article of faith. Alas, the Church
has periodically been willing to burn folks over disagreements less
important than that.
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, 2 Oct 1992 11:25:00 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Bible studies

On Oct 1,  7:30pm, "(thomas siller)" wrote:
} Subject: Bible studies
} group discussions, and include the relevnt texts (NIV). My question is, are
} there
} equivalents availble from the Catholic Publishing Houses. The coordinator of
} our
} group indicated he is on the mailing list of most Catholic Publishing houses
} and
} knows of none that produce this type of study. His comment has always been
 that
} the Catholic Studies tend to be much more in depth, i.e. acaddemic, and not
} written for the starting lay person. Our concern is, some of us, I speak
 mostly
} for myself, worry about some of the differences between the Life Application
} Publishers and our church. As an example, the author of James was clearly
}-- End of excerpt from "(thomas siller)"

[Tom, could you use shorter lines inthe future so they won't wrap like
that? thanks...]

In the Bible study I used to attend in CA we used a combination of the
Little Rock (I think that's what it's called) series and also the
Navarre Bible.  The Navarre is an excellent resource (though sometimes
hard to find) since it has parallel RSV (I think) and Latin Vulgate with
extensive notes (like, a third of the average page is notes).

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.
Your business will go through a period of considerable expansion.
From: topcat@hardy.u.washington.edu (Thanh - Vincent)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Fatima: warning or prediction
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:09:22 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>      I ask myself these questions very often because I have a
>   few Jewish and Muslim friends and I worry about them
>   constantly.  I pray that they will be given a second chance
>   right before the Second Coming.  I also pray for the millions
>   of non-Christians in the world - and I struggle with the
>   question of whether I should be doing more to help them.  I
>   also had a friend who died before his high school graduation
>   and he was an atheist.  Is there any hope for him?  This last
>   question tormented me for weeks, and I still have no answer.

why do you worry?  is God not just?  will he not judge justly and
accordingly?  you don't have to believe in God to be saved.  you don't
have to be catholics either.  whatever you believe, as long as you live a
clean life with a clean conscience, what else can God ask of you?
He can't blame you for what you don't know.

>By the same token I suppose I should be worrying about how
>disappointed you're going to be when you die and find out that
>it's nothing like what you were expecting -- or just keep living
>on into the future past when you think the Millenium is supposed
>to happen.

good heavens!  live a decent life and stop worrying.  there is so many
things you can do now, living, to benefit you and the rest of mankind.
stop worry about something you can't really know until it happens.

>
>There are much more important issues to think about than what's
>going to happen to all those people who happen to have different
>religious beliefs than you do.  I would rather see a lot of
>people putting their effort into trying to respect other
>people's beliefs rather than worrying about how to convert them
>to "the truth".

indeed.  if you put up a good example of what you believe, maybe they will
be inspired and follow your religion without you lifting a finger.
religion is much more than preaching, it's living it!
many a phony people have preached well, but never followed with actions.

vince
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:20:56 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: Turning the Other Cheek

Liz Moreau (EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU) writes:

>I know what the Bible says about turning the other cheek.  It is hard
>enough for adults to do, but I was wondering about the parents out
>there.  How do you instruct your children?
>
>We know that school grounds aren't like they used to be.  If you child
>is being taunted, do you tell him to walk away?  Does this set up the
>child for more taunting?  How does everyone handle these things?

This is a great topic of discussion, Liz!

Last week, my 15 year-old daughter came home from school and told us how her
social studies class laughed at her.  The teacher had been talking about Saddam
Hussein and that she felt that the U.S. hadn't gone far enough in the Gulf war.
One of the students said we should have assassinated Hussein.  The teacher said
that might have been a good idea, but my daughter said no.  When asked why not,
she said, it was immoral.  The class broke out in laughter.  The teacher, after
a while, told the class to settle down, but never said my daughter was right.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Deacons
Date: 3 Oct 92 14:38:51 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

>    I would suspect that the Roman Catholic program is similar to what
> we do in the Episcopal Church.  I would be happy to communicate with
> anyone who feels a call to the Diaconate, but lets keep it in E-Mail
> as it is a fairly private sort of thing.
> Shalom,                         Len Howard
>                                 tas@pegasus.com

Len, thanks for sharing this information.  If you don't mind, I'm curious as to
just what a Deacon in the Episcopal Church is allowed to do.  Is it similar to
the Diaconate in the RCC?

BTW, while I agree with you that discussion of an individual's call to a
vocation is a personal thing, I think that this is a very good topic for this
list, especially now that we're hearing about two Diaconate programs.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:40:39 PDT
From:         "John R. Covert 29-Sep-1992 1906" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Crisis in the Episcopal Church (Episcopal Synod of America)

I think that a lot of Episcopalians don't really understand the ESA.
I, myself, didn't know a lot about it until my work with NOEL brought
me together with the ESA people working on the Thirty-One Resolutions.

The primary function of the ESA, as I see it, is to be sure that those
Episcopalians who believe that there is only one catholic priesthood
and episcopate, that there is no such thing as "the Anglican priesthood
and episcopate", and who believe that such a drastic change as the
ordination of women would have to be agreed upon (at least in principal)
by the entire holy, catholic, and apostolic church, continue to have
access to male priests and bishops.

Remember: the authorization in General Convention for the ordination of
women was _provisional_!  It passed by only 51%!  It included the requirement
that provisions be made to administer the sacraments to those who in good
conscience do not accept the ordination of women.  The primary method for
doing this is by providing Episcopal visitors (visiting bishops) in the case
of need, as authorized by the provisions of Article II, Section 3, of the
Constitution of the Episcopal Church.

On the Prayer Book:  Neither of the two parishes in Boston most closely
associated with the ESA use the old prayer book.  My parish, The Church
of the Advent, uses the 1979 Prayer Book Rite I for High Mass on Sundays
and Principal Feasts, uses Rite II for Sunday 9:00 Mass, and, with the
permission of the local bishop, as authorized by General Convention,
uses the 1928 Prayer Book once a week for Sunday 8:00 Mass.  Daily Mass
uses mass cards which are essentially 1979 Rite I.

All Saints (Ashmont), which is actually an "official" ESA parish (this does
not mean that it has left the Diocese of Massachusetts), uses "The Anglican
Service Book".  Such books are authorized on page 14 of the 1979 Prayer
Book: "the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language".
The Advent also uses "The Anglican Service Book" for the Daily Office.

When I first heard about the ESA, I was distrustful.  "The last thing we
need is another schism in the Body of Christ."  But as I learned more
about the ESA, I found that unlike those who have chosen to leave the
Anglican Communion and form "continuing Anglican churches" such as "the
Province of Christ the King", the ESA is committed to working within the
Communion, to upholding the one Catholic Faith.

If you want to know more about the ESA, I suggest you either contact
them directly, or that you obtain a copy of "The Episcopal Synod of
America; Speeches, Sermons Documents and Pictures from the Founding
Meeting", A. Donald Davies, General Editor, ISBN 0-8192-1534-1.

/john
covert@covert.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: difference between religious and secular priests
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-29945]: hermes
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:05:37 GMT


In article <1992Sep28.015523.29455@erenj.com>, bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:

> The revised Code states (paraphrased, from same referenced source..) All
> members of the religious take vows to observe the evangelical counsels
> of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  

I don't think diocesan priests are considered "religious" in the sense
meant here.  I could be mistaken, but in that context, "religious" means
"belonging to a religious order."  By contrast, diocesan priests are
called "secular."  They most certainly do not take vows.  I know of one
monsignor (now retired) who is a millionaire several times over.  The
money is his personally, not the church's.  Of course, he's sort of
quiet about it because many people are scandalized to learn of a
millionaire priest, but he's not breaking any _vows_, if for no other
reason than he hasn't taken any.  (He's also not breaking any promises,
either, since secular priests only promise obedience to the bishop and
perpetual celibacy.)

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: sinead o'connor
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.144738.21809@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
>In article <9210051356.AA02067@mayo.cs.utk.edu> mayo@CS.UTK.EDU writes:
>>Yes, I saw the insult to our Holy Father as well.  I was outraged, and
>>immediately prayed for Sinead O'Connor.  I called my husband into the
>>room, and could hardly describe what I had seen.  I felt physical pain.
>>I plan to offer sacrifice in reparation for her offense and am praying
>>about whether or not to write the network.  Does anyone have the address?
>
>As a former employee of a broadcast network, I can tell you that is exactly
>_why_ the lady did what she did.  Look at the bandwidth this is taking up...
>Regardless of the fact that she is a marginal songstress and sometime
>loony cause activist, she certainly got everyone's attention.  Like a 
>child, if you ignore the attention-getting tantrum, then there will be
>less of it to deal with.  Prayer is the best defense...
>
>But, if you must write, NBC Television Network, 30 Reckefeller Center, 


oops....---------------------------------------- 30 Rockefeller Center,


>New York, NY 10019 Attention: Broadcast Standards and Practices.  Best
>tack to take is a reasoned, well thought-out letter (not shrill, nor
>strident...) detailing 1) you know all about freedom of the media, 2)
>you maintain standards that may or may not be higher than the least-common
>denominator the nets use to determine broadcast content, and 3) the
>personal insult you feel at the fact that NBC apparently condones
>by providing a soapbox to this marginal performer.  Also, let them 
>know, that regardless, you feel obliged to counsel your friends to 
>not frequent the local NBC station any longer until they consider _ALL_
>points of view.  YOu will probably get a form letter back, but, 
>enough of them get sent, there will be some discussion in the management
>suites...
>
>Bryan D. Boyle     | Opinions mine, not Exxon's...
>Senior Engineer    | Fly because you can...
>ER&E Co.           | 908 730 3338
>
>
From: v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: sex
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:59:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct01.131949.37501@watson.ibm.com>, dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com writes...
>Hi. I was just wondering what readers thoght about Catholics who participate
>in mass and other activities of the church while acting outside of strict	church "rules" on such things as contraception and/or pre-marital sex?
> 
>At an engaged encounter, it seemed that the priest indicated the church
>was adamantly against pre-marital sex, yet "understood" if a couple decided
>to use contraceptives other than natural family planning. 
> 
>Have you experienced this "soft rule/hard rule" attitude in the RC church?
> 
>Donna 

I too have noticed this soft/hard business.  I think that it is a case
of Church discipline getting lax.  Behaving a certain way is a necessary
(but not sufficient!) condition of being a Catholic.  There is a difference
between doing wrong, even habitually, while knowing that it's wrong and
trying to do better, on the one hand, and doing it with a clear conscience
and being puzzled that some people think it's wrong, on the other.  In other
words, I'd say that many young people in the Church today, at least in
N America, have  n o  p r o b l e m  ignoring Church teachings on sexual
ethics.  They aren't trying and failing, they aren't trying.  And this hard/soft
business makes it worse.  

Am I being too cranky to suggest that we need stricter discipline?  If we
make it so easy to be Catholic that there's no difference between being
Catholic and not being Catholic, then people will leave the Church--and
who can blame them?  Why get up early on Sunday when it makes no difference
anyway?

Comments are invited on this!  How do we draw the line between being
forgiving and open, on the one hand, and overly tolerant, on the other?

Too many hands in this posting!

pax

Michael Gorman
Benedictan Educated and doing just fine, thank you  8-)
From: ern+@pitt.edu (Ernest J Obusek)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: mysticism
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:15:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <01GP8S4LCQ6S8WW0MR@umassd.edu> EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU (Liz Moreau) writes:
>>Guided imagery is done all the time in virtually every Catholic
>>Church. It is simply meditation, or deep relaxed thought, on images
>>that are suggested by another person. It is a tool, rather than a
>>doctrine, or spiritual path, and at its base is really just hypnosis.
>
>Yes, it really is just hypnosis!  We are warned against this in the
>Bible.  We are told not to give over control of ourselves to anything
>or anyone.  People that are in a hypnotic state usually don't remember
>anything or just a little bit of what happened when they were under.
>
>					God Bless,
>
>						Liz


What are you saying here?  That hypnosis is forbidden in the Bible, and
therefore guided imagery also?

If you are then I suggest that you pick up any classical text on "Mental 
Prayer" and see that guided imagery is just an extension of a very old
prayer form.

And I think you should read up on hypnosis also.  Your statment shows a
real misunderstanding of what happens in hypnosis.

Ernest

ern@unix.cis.pitt.edu

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:03:43 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Mary

Excerpts from catholic: 2-Oct-92 Mary The Banshee@PRIME1.LANCA (980)

> However I need some apologetics advice (again) to diffuse a difficult
> situation.  Two of my friends (one catholic and one ex catholic) are
> currently arguing about the justification for giving Mary the title
> Mother of God. The ex-catholic seems to consider that this would mean
> that Mary pre dated God which is obviously not true.  Can you help us
> explain this to him.  Please remember he hasn't been a catholic since he
> was a child and now attends a baptist church.

OK, the best way to approach this is this way.

He says, "We cannot call Mary the Mother of God."
"Do you believe that Jesus is God?"
"Of course I do."
"And you believe that Mary is  the mother of Jesus, right?"
"Well, yes."
"Then Mary is the mother of God, correct?"
"No she's not."
"But she has to be -- to deny that is to deny that Jesus is God.  This
is exactly how the term came about -- the Arians denied that Jesus was
God.  The Jehovah's Witnesses are very similar to the Arians of old.  To
emphasize that Christ was in fact fully God, the church began to call
Mary the Mother of God."
"But Mary is only the mother of Jesus's human nature.  She's not the
mother of the Second Person of the Trinity."
"Is a mother the mother of a nature or the mother of a person?  Mary
truly is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, because all
mothers are mothers of persons, not of natures.  Besides, Jesus's human
nature and divine nature are inseparable."
"But to say that Mary is the Mother of God implies that she existed
before God did."
"No, it doesn't.  It means that she gave birth to God made flesh.  Mary
is not the mother of the Trinity, or the mother of the Father or the
Spirit.  She is the mother of God the Son, and she can be called the
Mother of God because Jesus was fully God and fully man, and was born of
Mary.  Mary held God, suckled God, carried God, and changed God's
diapers.  Therefore Mary may rightly be called 'The Mother of God.'"

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny that Jesus is God.
That's all there is to it.  The only reasonable objection is perhaps
referring to her as the Mother of God is confusing to those who do not
know better, but beyond that, one cannot say that Mary is not the Mother
of God.

Hope this helps.

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: Sarek@world.std.com (Garrett Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Kneeling/Authority
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:17:32 GMT

In article <edjans01.717346189@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
>    This would mean that our Protestant brothers and sisters are going
>    straight to Hell and we all know that this is not the case.  Ghandi wasn't
>    Catholic.  Is he in Hell?  I think not.  If we are moved by whatever 
>    prayerform or liturgy that we attend, we can only show by our example that 
>    this is something that our brothers and sisters may find Christ.

I would highly recommend _Catholicism_, by Richard O'Brien (?), for
anyone who wants to find out interesting background information about
our faith. For example, it is an official church teaching that while
all are called to salvation, not all are called to belief in Christ.
Since this is the case, I find it hard to believe that people who
believe in Christ other than Catholics would not be called to salvation....
--------------------
"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace...."

Sarek of Vulcan
a.k.a. Garrett Fitzgerald `:-)
Official Diver of the RFA, 'Chelle's TwinSib, and Donna's OneTrueLove

Sarek@world.std.com

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, 25 Sep 1992 16:05:08 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Belief
              (Sep 25,  2:16pm)

John, sounds like you are studying Theology from Owen Thomas.

Shalom,                                      Len Howard
                                             tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic