HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:57:29 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Still Here

Sorry I've dropped off...I've been incredibly busy and have come down with
something unpleasant, so I've lost track of all the threads.  I'll try to
be more active sometime in the future (though I won't try to tie up old
forgotten threads...I'll try to jump in wherever things look interesting
in the present.

Be peaceful! :)

Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@dante.nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:36:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.165619.1637@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>
>
>    I may end up repeating myself from an earlier post, so please pardon
>me, but at the time it did not seem to get any response, and it seems
>relevant again here.  (Have you hit the 'n' key yet?  :-) )
>
>    If someone out there can set me straight, I would appreciate it,
>but from the best I've been able to determine, the earth does not go
>around the sun.  Instead, according to special relativity, it all
>depends on the frame of reference involved.  From the sun's frame
>of reference, we have nine (or is it ten?) planets revolving in
>elliptical orbits beautifully described by Kepler's Laws.  But those
>laws are only mathematical formulations, not physical events.  They
>could, with considerable difficulty I suppose, be reformulated to suit
>an earth frame of reference.  If you use the earth as an inertial
>frame of reference (to be fair, it isn't because of rotation, but it
>does pretty well even so), the sun moves around the earth.  (And, just
>to round this out, general relativity extends special relativity to
>noninertial frames, making it mathematically more general.  It does
>not, however, undermine the physical principle of relativity of motion.)
>
>    So, the whole point of this is, if you wish to say the Church was
>wrong with regard to Galileo, it looks as though you'll have to say
>in terms of treatment, attitude, or the like, because the substance of
>Galileo's doctrine is just as wrong as the geocentric universe.
>
>
>John Rickert
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
>

You are correct.  Though it did not take Special Relativity to make this point.
Newtonian Mechanics introduced the notion of relative motion (nice rhyme ha?),
whereby picking a reference point one could give an idealized mathematical
description in principle of all the motion anywhere in the universe in terms
of that reference point.  Special relativity adds some twists to Newton, in
that Newton assumed that there is in fact absolute space and time, against
which in principle if one could "locate" the reference frame for these absolutes
one could give a non-relativist account.  But you see the difficulty?  Trying
to "locate" absolute space and time?  Einstein rejected the assumption.
But Newton did not identify the Sun with the absolute space time reference
frame.  Strictly speaking the orbits are mathematically simpler with the
sun as reference point.  But if we give orbits a realistic interpretation,
i.e. assign some "real being" to them, then we return to the problems of
Ptolomeic epicycles, and their reality.

Peace,
John
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:41:33 GMT

Steve cites GI 70.
>   Lastly note the final sentence, "... from where it would be
>suitable for her..."  This implies that women should give the readings
>from somewhere different than the usual place, i.e. the sanctuary.

Don't forget the appendix

66. WOMEN AS READERS
 
 The Conference of Bishops has given the permission for women to serve
as readers in accord with no. 66 of the General Instruction.
 In February 1971 the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy prepared a commentary
on the liturgical ministry of women
  1.  With the exception of service at the altar itself, women may be 
admitted to the exercise of other liturgical ministies.  In particular the
designation of women to serve in such ministries as reader, cantor, leader
of singing, commentator, director of liturgical participation, etc., is
left to the judgement of the pastor or priest who presides over the
celebration, in the light of the culture and mentality of the congregation.
  2.  Worthyness of life and character and other qualifications are
required in women who exercise liturgical ministries in the same way as for
men who exercise the same ministries.
  3.  Women who read one or other biblical reading during the liturgy of 
the word (other than the gospel, which is reserved to the deacon or
priest) SHOULD DO SO FROM THE LECTERN OR AMBO where the other readings
are proclaimed: the reservation of a single place for all the biblical
readings is more significant than the person of the reader, whether
ordained or lay, whether woman or man (cf. GI, no. 272)
  4.  Other ministries performed by women, such as leading the singing
or otherwise directing the congregation, should be done EITHER WITHIN or
outside the sanctuary area, depending on circumstances or conveniences.

EMPHASIS MINE.

Bob


--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <mberhan@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:16:32 PST
From:         mberhan@CUP.PORTAL.COM
Subject:      Re: Blessed Mother at Akita, Japan

cccamper@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:

>Mike,
>Thank you for the posting of Mary's messages on Catholic. It hit me
>like a flood to read someone else posting these things. Sometimes it
>seems as if "no one out there" knows these things. It's nice to be
>reminded that many know.
>
>We were at a conference where Christina G. was to speak, but for some
>reason we missed her. Do you have the information on how to receive
>a book (or whatever) of her messages?

Christina spoke at Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church in Santa Clara, CA.  I
didn't attend because I didn't know!  Fortunately they taped it and I have
watched it.  It's a great video.  If you'd be so kind as to E-Mail me your
address, I'd love to mail you out a copy.  The name of the book I have is
"Please come back to me and my son.  Our lady's appeal through Christina
Gallagher to the people of Ireland and all humanity."  I bought a copy at
a local Catholic bookstore.  It was printed by Litho Tech Impressions (310)
432-2445.  I don't know if you can call them directly.  If you'd like, I
can get you a copy.  Just let me know.

>*All* the visionaries and locutionists, though separated by thousands of
>miles, are told basically the same thing. Why oh *why* can't everyone hear.

Yes, I agree.  It is utterly amazing how the messages are so similar even
though they are separated by culture and separated by thousands of miles.
I'd have to guess that you and I combined are aware of only a small
percentage of the people who are receiving messages.

>Too bad there isn't a list to exchange messages from all the visionaries.
>Medjugorje, Ireland, Scottsadale and Phoenix, etc. And to exchange ideas
>on how to get the messages to the general public.

Yes, it would be nice.  (415) 321-MARY has Mary's monthly message from
Medjugorje as does (800) 235-MARY.  I will E-Mail you two messages that
I've typed in earlier.  Perhaps you'll find them of interest.  They are
messages given to Father Gobbi by Our Lady.

On June 24, 1977, a certain Cardinal Karol Wojtyla from Cracow, Poland
stated:  "We find ourselves in the presence of the greatest confrontation
in history; the greatest mankind has ever had to confront.  We are facing
the final confrontation between the Church and the Anti-Church, between
the Gospel and the Anti-Gospel."  What did the future Pope John Paul II
mean when he uttered these words?  [Taken from the book on Mrs. Gallagher]

>In Jesus and Mary,
>Elizabeth
>cccamper@mizzou1  cccamper@mizzou1.missouri.edu

Mike Berhan
mberhan@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Love & Christianity
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:13:16 GMT

In article <9211070457.AA46435@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au> "(Simon Milton)" <milton@PROBITAS.CS.UTAS.EDU.AU> writes:
>
>  Eric:  How do you determine that practicing homosexuality is  acceptable
>  to  God?  If  God  blessed  homosexual  unions,  why didn't he make them
>  fruitful? I mean, the reason God created sexual love was for procreation
>  --  and  homosexual sex is by nature not procreative.  When you and your
>  boyfriend can biologically  produce  a  child,  then  we'll  talk  about
>  whether homosexual sex is blessed by God.
>
>This  is skirting the issue.  What about heterosexual unions that due to
>infertility cannot produce issue?  (And, BTW, how long will it be before
>men can be surrogate "mothers"?)

Are you comparing homosexuality to what is recognizably a pathological
condition in heterosexuals, i.e. an illness?

As far as your example of male surrogate mothers, are you relying upon a
principle to the effect that what we *can* do technologically, we *may*
do technologically?

Peace,
John


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-19883]: jupiter
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:48:34 GMT


In article <Uf0FgL__NU00Mb190i@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com>,         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
> 
> I am saying that in Dahmer's case, I believe that homosexual behavior
> was partially responsible for inciting his sociopathic behavior.
> 
> Therefore homosexual behavior has dangerous consequences.
> 

Seems to me you could make the same argument about a
heterosexual sociopath.  You seems to be saying that
homosexuality necessarily brings out the worst in people;
and frankly, that's just not the case.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
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 11:19:35 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425 wrote:

> Andrew Werling (awerling@nmsu.edu) writes:
>
> >I refuse to live a life of suicidal solitude,
>
> Thinking that solitude is suicidal is certainly ludicrous,

You have perverted my logic.  I did not say solitude is suicidal.  I
referred to a suicidal solitude.  A specific kind of solitude: one where I
would be lonely *because* your god in your bible tells me that it's a sin
for me to love men, even though it is natural for me to love men.

In other words, for me to not find a lover and form a strong
emotional/mental/spiritual/sexual relationship with him could quite
possibly be dooming myself to a life of depression which can lead to suicide.

My point was that I have no intention of doing that.


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: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Homosexuality
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:41:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.145921.23786@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>The Vatican is not identical with the Church.  The Church is the
>entire people of God, and Church leaders have an obligation to
>consider the experience and prayerful conclusions reached by the
>faithful.  Matt 18:15-17 could just as easily be used against
>narrow-minded curial officials as it could to sincere, prayerful,
>Christ-like homosexuals living in monogamous relationships.

"Church leaders have an obligation to consider the experience and prayerful
conclusions reached by the faithful" in light of Revelation which has its
sources in Scripture and Tradition.

What obligation do the prayerful faithful have to the teaching authority 
of the Church?

Peace,
John
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Nature of List
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 05:56:10 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:

>
> If we want those pews to be full again, if we want Jesus's message to be
> carried to the world, if the church is to be meaningful to the world of
> today, some changes are going to have to be made.
>

Jim, thanks for a very profound article.  I can't help but read it with a sense
of irony, however, since I live in a parish that actually has too *few* pews
rather than lots of empty ones.  The priests complain that they spend so much
time saying funeral masses during the week (one of the few things they can't
delegate to a lay person, of course) that they don't have much time to minister
to the living!

Of course, this is really a political problem rather than a spiritual one.
Political in the sense of the money coming into the parish.  (When was the last
time you heard of a parish giving $25K+ on Mission Sunday?)  The school is
full, the collection plate is doing well, and it's getting impossible to get a
seat at 9:30 Mass.  Forget sitting at the Saturday vigils if you're not there
at least 20 minutes before Mass.

The irony I see in this is that it's not how Jesus' message is being
communicated that will eventually run people away, but sheer numbers.  Many
people are already turning to other parishes because they can't get their
children into the school.  Amazing how things work in the RCC.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:20:14 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Calif. Prop 161

The word here in Tennessee is that it failed, but I think we would all
prefer to hear it from someone in California.

Gordon, how did things go in Arizona?

Wallace
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:33:18 GMT

In article <921110084429.28e45c68@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>
>John O:
>Why do we need a Church law which proscribes the ordination of women if
>God will never call them anyway? Are there not steps along the way to
>ordination which would weed out a person who wasn't truely called
>regardless of sex? My view is that this proscription is simply a way
>for some to control what they think is God's intent.

Is this a serious question?  The proscription is present because some 
have claimed to be called.  But claiming to be called is not enough, which
is what the proscription in effect says.  It is the first step in that process
you refer to.  "Are you a woman?"  "Yes, I am a woman." "Then though you may
feel called, you are not."  As you well know, Church teaching develops in 
conflict, when the need for clarity is great because someone is challenging
it.
The Church has never claimed that there are not many people who claim to be
called to the priesthood.  What it claims is that it is its responsibility to 
determine who in fact is called from among all those who claim to be called.
Once again you are running up against the constant practice of the Church.

"My view is that this proscription is simply a way for some to control what
they think is God's intent."  Well of course, I cannot argue with you 
as to what your view is.  However, there is the further question as to whether
your view is true or not.  According to the Church it is not.  The Church
claims the authority to teach God's intent in salvation.  Do you deny
this?  If so on what grounds?  The Church claims the ground of its authority
is the Revelation made to it in Jesus Christ.  Do you claim a similar authority?
Has God made some revelation to you by which you can judge the authority
of the Church, and by which you can tell us what is God's intent in salvation
history, and thus tell us what He does not proscribe?  Are you just trying
to control what you think is God's intent?

Is this the best you can do?  Is this all you argument comes down to?  "Well
the Church has a proscription saying that women cannot be priests, so I
guess they must recognize that women are called?"  That's it?  I can't
believe you can't do any better than this?
I guess when sarcasm fails, logic quickly follows suit. :-)

Peace,
John



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Congratulations America - plus a thought!
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:56:06 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <92310.033140MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen) writes:
>
>Pope Pius XI said that no Catholic could be a socialist.  Some have
>argued that he was referring to a particular kind of socialism and
>that other kinds are acceptable, but a Catholic who supports "social-
>ism" should be familiar with the pope's teaching and should be pre-
>pared to show that what he means by "socialism" is not what the pope
>condemned.

Er, yes... either that or simply disagree with the political views of Pope
Pius XI. 

And why stop at Pius XI? I'm sure the views of Pius IX will better serve to
bolster your political prejudices, Marty. :-)

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:55:38 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 13

                    Friday, November 13, 1992
                 Frances Xavier Cabrini, Virgin

II John 4-9                 Psalm 119                   Luke 17:26-37


                            ORTHODOXY

"Anyone who is so "progressive" that he does not remain rooted in the teaching
of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the
teaching possesses both the Father and the Son." --II John 9

    Many Christians, even priests, are not orthodox.  They believe and teach
things not in accord with the teachings of the Church.  Many don't even care
whether their teachings are orthodox.

    This attack against orthodox teaching has been going on for centuries.
Paul commanded Timothy to "stay on in Ephesus in order to warn certain people
there against teaching false doctrines" (I Tim 1:3).  We are to "guard the
rich deposit of faith with the help of the Holy Spirit Who dwells within
us" (II Tim 1:14).  A Christian leader "must hold fast to the authentic
message, so that he will be able both to encourage men to follow sound
doctrine and to refute those who contradict it" (Ti 1:8).  "People will not
tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround
themselves with teachers who tickle their ears.  They will stop listening
to the truth and will wander off to fables" (II Tim 4:3-4).

    Therefore, "pray for us that the word of the Lord may make progress and
be hailed by many others, even as it has been by you.  Pray that we may be
delivered from confused and evil men.  For not every man has faith, but the
Lord keeps faith; He it is Who will strengthen you and guard you against
the evil one"  (II Thes 3:1-3).


Prayer:  Father, purify Your Church.  May we repent of holding and teaching
unorthodox beliefs.

Promise: "Whoever tries to preserve his life will lose it; whoever loses it
          will keep it."  Lk 17:33

Praise:  James repented and had his vasectomy reversed.

-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bishop4559@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter?
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:18:31 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Has anyone out there had any dealings with, or know anything about the Priestly
Fraternity of St. Peter (Fraternitas Sacerdotili Sancti Petri)?  This is the
group that was formed immediatley after the schism of Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre.

If so, let me know.
I am interested in checking out orthodox religious communities for men.

Thanks!
Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:41:48 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992, (Joel Neisen) wrote:

> > I'm not here to be converted
> > Maybe we can learn from each other
>
> You are hopefully open to the possibility that what you may learn
> could produce a desire to be converted.

The conversation will hopefully change me, yes...that's why I'm here.  If
I happen to be "turned on" to Christianity, so be it.  I'm questing...my
mind is open but skeptical.  I will not jump into anything.

Happyfag!  Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.edu
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: question
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:20:34 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

bishop4559@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

> In article <921030111641.28e33404@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.C
> > Brian, the problem obviously lies in those who think of women as just
> > "invalid matter", that's a fact they can't deal with:-) - J.J.
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
>
> Pizza and Beer cannot become the Body of Christ.  INVALID MATTER
> People cannot be baptized with gasoline.  INVALID MATTER
> Women cannot be priests.  INVALID MATTER
>
> Does this mean that I have difficulty dealing with gasoline, pizza, and beer?
> Heck no, I love 'em all.  Geeesh.  A fact is a fact.

You mention gasoline, pizza and beer as things you love, what about women? :-)




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:15:09 -0600
From:         Joel Neisen <joel@MSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nature of List

> Did not Jesus say of John the Baptist, "...he will be least in the
> kingdom of God..." (or something like that) ? The kingdom of God (or
Actually it was more along the lines of "no man born of woman is greater
than John (the Baptist), but i assure you the least in the
kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

joel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Hello, everyone. Airing dilemmas, too.
Keywords: Ordination of women, etc.
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:12:00 GMT

In article <BxnBCo.AI5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia) writes:
>Sorry for the long hello. Here's a quick goodbye.
>
>Angelo Paguia
>ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>
>"Not by reason, but by faith."

Hello Angelo!
Why were you here at Notre Dame, and why did you leave?
Peace
John O'Callaghan
"I believe in order that I may understand."


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Attorney General
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:41:42 GMT

   One lamentable consequence of the election is
that the country will lose a very fine Attorney General.
                    Steve.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic