HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhalat@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (James Halat)
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jhalat
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:26:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.231223.4531@erenj.com>, bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:

|> In some areas of New York city, murder and rape is considered an
|> inconvenience that interrupts the open selling of drugs by armed
|> children on street corners.  Prostitution is openly practiced
|> 
|> while the police look on.  The majority of people in those areas,
|> if not supporting these vicious vices, at least by their silence, 
|> implicitly allow this kind of thing to continue to go on.  So, does
|> that mean that NYC should decriminalize murder, rape, and drug dealing
|> (Even I don't think Dinkens would be that stupid, but, then, he
|> has been known to surprise people)?  There are probably enough 
|> people in the city that would not even blink an eye if it happened.
|> 

Wow.  That's the most narrow-minded, fundamentally ignorant statement about 
New York City that I have ever, and I mean ever, come across.  Have 
you spent any real time in the city?  If you live here, I'd be 
fascinated on the specifics of your claims: what majority?  what areas?


Truly intrigued 

--jim


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





Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:19:20 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      RE: Queens School Board

Marty Helgesen <MNHCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>    Dolores: I know that. In this page, 381, it tells the teacher
>that if her class is mature enough, she can tell them the specific ways
>that this disease is transmitted sexually. That would include the
>references made on 379, oral, anal, and vaginal sex.
As a "congenital progressive", I see nothing wrong here, Marty:-) -J.J.
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 92 19:59:58 CST
Organization: Seashell Software

Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

> The other possibility is that the couple do not even attend church and
> just want the kid 'sprinkled' as some sort of magic.  I suspect that
> most priests may be reluctant to baptize anyone who is not a child oc
> [that should be of] a communicant.  There is much more to the baptism
> than just the rite itself.  Our priest has said many times that he is
> reluctant to baptize a child of strangers.  It gets into the
> commitments made by the parents and godparents.  And as I mentioned
> before, baptism is not just a magical process that somehow changes the
> kid for good without any need for future action by the partents.  I
> look on baptism as the admission ticket to the Body of Christ, but
> there is much more to it than just walking through the door.
>
> Shalom,                                   Len Howard

Len, I'm not sure how my Episcopal/Anglican brethren handle such cases, but it
seems to me that a RC priest would also have to give serious consideration to
the *need* of the child to be baptized.  Since baptism is the means by which we
are forgiven of Original Sin, that sacrament is indeed a 'ticket' to heaven.
Without it, that child can't get into the Kingdom of God.

Having been the father of a child who was born at 25 1/2 weeks, and spent four
months in a neo-natal unit, this subject is a bit closer to home.  We had
Kathleen baptized in the hospital, and followed that up with a formal
christening in the Church a couple of months after she got out of the hospital.
That's an extreme case, granted, but any normally healthy child can have a
tragic accident, become a victim of SIDS, whatever.  While the priest is
holding out because of the parents, and the parents are in a snit and shopping
for a new priest, a grave injustice could be done to that little soul.  Seems
to me that this priest should stop jerking these people around and baptize the
child.  Worry about how the child is being raised later.  I certainly wouldn't
want to answer to the Lord as to why I let a child die unbaptized while I was
busy judging the parents.





|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Date: 7 Dec 92 05:25:57 GMT
Organization: Seashell Software

jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:

> In article <0yZBVB5w165w@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@seashell.
> >
> >To Steve Barr:  Based on John's recounting of this event, it looks like the
> >Church in Boston is very much participating in political activity.  Granted
> >cause is good *this time*, but a prohibition should be a prohibition, lest t
> >Church be viewed as hypocritical.
>
> Isn't there a significant differance between holding and exercising political
> power in a government on the one hand, and lobbying those who do hold and
> exercise such power?  Maybe its not a good distinction.
> Peace, and Happy Advent.
> John
>
>
>

Is there much difference anymore, John?  I'm not so sure.  For all of Clinton's
noises about kicking out the folks with the alligator shoes and $1000 suits,
the reality of the situation is that those folks have become as important a
part of policy formation as elected officials at all levels of government.  In
many areas, the Church heirarchy (in deference to John Covert's attempts to
dodge the point by pointing out that the 'Church' is more than priests) is a
very powerful lobbying group.






|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: v074r7ce@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (I DON'T REALLY FEEL BROKE UNTIL I'M OUT OF STAMPS...)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: re- petting,etc... thanks for the post, steve
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:07:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

thanks for the information- by the way what is this Human Vitae I keep hearing
about??? 

MC
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha)
Subject: Re: Financing education (was Queens School Board
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:40:21 GMT

Jim McIntosh writes:
>The problem is that the public schools are under-funded.

I don't think it is accurate to call the public-schools underfunded.
An example (I don't remember the article) is Detroit, MI.  Their schools
get more per student than all but the elite suburbs, but the quality is
low.  Catholic Schools in the city get by with much less.  The problem
is misallocation - there are *lots* of administrators.  Another example
are the Janitors in the NY school system (60 Minutes about a month ago
had a segment).

Unfortunately, the schools are a convienient place for patronage, social
engineering, and educational experimentation.  I don't mean to condemn all
schools.  The school I went to (Southfield, High) was probably better than
the local Catholic High School.  The problem is that most places that seem
underfunded are actually spending the money on something other than teaching
the students.  Even Southfield went out and hired a consultant that was paid
more than the state govenor.  And they wonder why school taxes are voted
down (even after they change the polling places and hold the election on a
strange day, and keep it secret except for notes the children bring home
predicting disaster if it is not passed).

If there are legitimate cases of underfunding, then monies probably should
be increased.  But some traditional virtues probably should be applied first
(e.g. thrift, and direct learning toward basic skills and not toward hobbies,
or require fees for those (means tested)).

Even intra-public vouchers would help - the schools in this area are diverse
and there are still some that have a traditional outlook.  Different schools
do specialize to some extent, and such a system would give the poor the
opportunity to go where they would want to.

---
zerucha@shell.portal.com - main email address
zerucha@fim001.ets.ford.com - work address
Thomas Zerucha / 24075 Lee Baker / Southfield MI 48075 - hardcopy
(313)594-4941 - work phone
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:41:44 EST
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
              5 Dec 1992 16:50:44 CST from
              <elendil@SEASHELL.MINTIR.NEW-ORLEANS.LA.US>

On Sat, 5 Dec 1992 16:50:44 CST Edward J. Branley said:
>To Steve Barr:  Based on John's recounting of this event, it looks like the
>Church in Boston is very much participating in political activity.  Granted the
>cause is good *this time*, but a prohibition should be a prohibition, lest the
>Church be viewed as hypocritical.

The prohibition is against priests running for office, not against the
Church participating in the political process. The Church has every right
and in fact, I would propose, a duty to preach the Gospel. In fact, all
Christians have this duty. To be, in need be, a voice calling in the
wilderness.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b23
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:00:28 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church

jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
> I would however again add another distinction.  I
> would say that the intent, though not the character, can condition the
> the effectiveness of the efficacious power of the sacrament in the
> recipient, but that it does not affect that efficacious power itself, or
> the validity of the sacrament.

I think I follow you here :), and if I do I agree.

> Agreed for once.  Hooray!

Chuckle.  Well, I suspect we have far more in common than not; it's just that
we all seldom sit around writing long postings about how much we agree :)...


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Queens school board
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:10:05 GMT

    Well, JJ, if there is to be "brainwashing" of little
children, at least let it be washing rather than fouling.
Steve.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:11:52 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 14-Dec-1992 0741" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church

>>I would not really expect a priest to be able to go further than to offer a
>>private baptism, and for a Roman Catholic priest, even that is done at some
>>risk of discipline from his bishop.
>This is not accurate. I even asked a Roman Catholic priest about it. What is
>the basis for such a claim? The rest of Mr. Covert's analysis seems pastorally
>prudent.

The basis is speculation (so I should have said "probably"), but it is grounded
in the _large_ number of cases I hear about or read about on the network of
fallen away Roman Catholics who are unable to get a priest to baptize their
children.  When I see someone write that he has "called several parishes
in town" I begin to think that the bishop may have instructed his priests not
to baptize children of parents who are not in good standing until they come
back and reconcile themselves.  Certain dioceses may have bishops who are
stricter than others in this regard.

I speculate that such a bishop would discipline (mildly -- possibly just an
admonition to not do it again) a priest for baptizing the child of parents
who appear to the bishop to be uninterested in returning to the faith.

I really don't understand why people who are hostile to the Church or are not
willing to follow even its most basic rules (like getting married or coming
to mass at least often enough that the priest recognizes them) want to have
their children baptized in public or even private ceremonies in the church.

I think this is probably one of the reasons I don't think I'd make a good
priest.  My reaction might have been much less charitable than my own rector's
reaction during pre-baptismal pastoral counselling of the parents of a child
whose grandmother, a devout Roman Catholic, had been unable to arrange for a
Roman Catholic baptism, and had turned to our parish for a private baptism.
The father said, "You mean Episcopalians believe that Jesus is _God_?" -- Our
priest responded, "Yes, Caiaphas."

/john
From: lhh@LCUXLP.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Devotion to Mary
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:59:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I have a copy of the book "True Devotion To Mary" by St. Louis DeMontfort
(TAN publishing).
Does anyone have experience with this book, I wonder if its
really meant for "nonbeginners" in the Christian life ?
Is this mainstream, or way out in left field ?

                        Thanks,
                        Len Horn
                        lcuxlp!lhh
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.
Phone: (716) 477-3067
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL17]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 740
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:32:36 -0500
Reply-To:     gerwitz@Kodak.COM
From:         Paul Gerwitz <gerwitz@KODAK.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Michigan Model is being changed
              Smiths Industries, VAX Support,              x8425" at Dec 17,
              92 04:16:26 pm

>
> You all may find this interesting:  yesterday, the state school board adopted
 a
> change to the Michigan Model, Michigan's approach to sex education in public
> schools.  They have modified it so that the teachers stress abstinance as the
> best method of preventing pregnancies and STDs and that it should be the first
> choice in a sexual situation.
>

IMHO.... Great News....

Thanks for sharing it...



--
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Paul F Gerwitz  WA2WPI  | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com                          |
 | Eastman Kodak Co        | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:33:44 -0500
From:         URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Queens school board

"Bryan D. Boyle" <bdboyle@ERENJ.COM>writes:
>Perhaps so that they can be inculcated early, and at an extremely
>impressionable age, about "alternative lifestyles" and acceptance
>of abortion, cohabitation, homosexuality, and moral relativism as
>a legitimate form of expression.

On the other hand, Saturday night, my wife and I attended a party at a
close friends' home in the next parish which does have a parish school.
Taped to their refrigerator was a letter from their third grade son thanking
the mother for not aborting him. The letter was quite lenthy, and having
known the boy from birth, was obviously dictated to him or copied by him
from the board. So I guess the brainwashing begins on both sides at an
earlier than would seem necessary age.

From what my local paper reported on the New York issue, the fuss was over
two books, one about so-and-so has two mommies and the other about some
father's boyfriend. There wasn't any mention of teaching the basics of
anal intercourse to first graders, and knowing the paper's lust for
sensationalism, I would think that if that was the issue, it would have
been reported. It seems the idea they are trying to get across is that
homosexuals are real people too. -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Priority:     normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:56:36 PDT
From:         frank lopez <FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)

> john ocallaghan <jocallag@DARWIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
> >Do we or do we not have laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape, all of
> >which seem to be matters of morality and values.  How do laws designed to
> >prohibit abortion differ significantly in intention from these laws?
>
> The "victim" is not a "legal" person. (just a guess:-) -J.J.

  Here is where the paradoxical, enigma wrapped in a mystery, thing
comes into play.  A fetus does have a tenuous, at best, "legal"
position.  An example of this would be the mother who is prosecuted
for child endangerment due to drug use while pregnant.

  Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:16:49 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      Re: "One Bread, One Body" Dec 11

I appreciate you sweet words.  THE BOX CAME YESTERDAY!!  Thank you so
very much.  I cannot wait to watch the tapes and begin to read.  You
have a generous heart and are always in my prayers.  God bless you.

Wallace
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:38:35 GMT

In article <7P2ZVB1w165w@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
>
>> In article <9212162235.AA33674@chaos.intercon.com> Amanda Walker <amanda@INTE
>> >"Donald J. Magee" <djm@TRENT.ATT.COM> writes:
>> >>         Wow, and I thought that my bishop John Cardinal O'Connor was an
>> >> American.  You learn new things everyday. :)
>> >
>> >His citizenship is not the issue.  However, there are civil restrictions on
>> >holding office if you owe allegience to "foreign powers", regardless of your
>> >citizenship.  It's called "conflict of interest."
>> >
>> >
>> Give me a break.  The government and people of the united states do not
>> set the rules for who we look to for spiritual direction and advice, nor
>> do we pledge fealty to the Pope.  Nor do the bishops, priests,
>> cardinals, even the Jesuits.  I would dare say that the Church that was
>> founded by Jesus Christ is a higher authority than whatever corrupt,
>> venal method of government we have today.  If push came to shove, I
>> would trust my eternal happiness to the Church rather than our
>> government.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bryan D. Boyle     |Exxon doesn't pay me to voice their opinions...
>> Senior Engineer    |Semper ubi sub ubi.
>> bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see forever on the Net...
>
>Hmmm...bishops, priests, cardinals, even Jesuits do take vows of obedience.
>That's pretty close to pledging fealty.
>
>Oh, yeah, and you can have a break, since you want one so bad.

Thanks for the break, but I would not want to disappoint anyone...:-)
 
Pretty close does not equal.  That's a little like being a little 
pregnant...


-- 
Bryan D. Boyle     |Exxon doesn't pay me to voice their opinions...
Senior Engineer    |Semper ubi sub ubi.
bdboyle@erenj.com  |On a clear day, you can see forever on the Net...
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
Subject: Moral vs Political law (was Re: Moral Activity)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:05:33 GMT

mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.150042.23564@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>| 
>|> I'm sick and tired of hearing the anti-lifers claim those of us who are
>|> opposed to abortion are trying to impress our moral values on the
>|> entire country.  The anti-lifers are trying to impress on the country
>|> their moral views that women should have the right to abort unborn
>|> babies.

> One can be anti-abortion and still believe that political laws are not the
> way to enforce moral law.  The goal is to stop abortion; changing the law
> will not stop it - that we know from previous experience.  One needs to work
> for a moral climate in which children are valued, the community (family)
> interests have greater weigh than individual interests, where
> emotional/financial/social support is given to those raising children
> regardless of the circumstances of the child's birth ... Abortion will stop
> only when the factors leading a woman to choose abortion are changed.  One
> cannot successfully legislate values; one can only legislate an environment
> that encourages those values (for example the anti-discrimination laws).

Martha suggests that making a law against abortion isn't a good way to
enforce the moral law against abortion, because it will not stop abortions. 

Well, we know from experience that it will certainly stop many abortions. 
I don't see why it isn't a good step in fighting abortion. I certainly
wouldn't suggest that it's the only necessary step; changing the moral
climate as Martha suggests is certainly a necessary one to completely
eliminate abortion.

But (to correct a common saying) "Laws are meant to remain unbroken."
One of the primary purposes of laws (perhaps the main purpose!) is to 
provide a concrete indication of moral limits. A law helps to shape the moral
climate of a country by spelling out where the moral limits lie. 

God bless,

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:56:47 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 13-Dec-1992 1853" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Asylum (sanctuary)

Is it time for the Church to revive the practice of granting sanctuary?

This past week, a priest was convicted in a case involving the blockade
of an abortion clinic.  Sentencing will occur in a few weeks, and if past
cases are any guide, he will be given a very long sentence, of at least
several years.

Up until the French Revolution, the Church often granted sanctuary to
people wanted by the state.  Should this priest be allowed to take up
residence in a monastery, and would the sheriff be bold enough to force
his way in to take him to prison?

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:22:17 -0500
Reply-To:     "Mark T. Butcher" <ch697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
From:         "Mark T. Butcher" <ch697@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Christmas Card to All

Bryan,
     I saw your CHRISTMAS CARD on Cleveland Free Net & I was
deeply touched. I have saved it to a file & have passed copies
to all my closest friends. Merry Christmas to you and all the
people that care about you.

--EVEN IN SEEMINGLY SMALL WAYS WE CAN TOUCH SO MANY!!--

GOD BLESS YOU.

                                 Mark T. Butcher
                                 & Family
                                   ch697
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU