HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:25:30 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Oct 9,  3:11pm, "(David Jansing)" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
}
} While I agree with you that homosexuality is not a choice, it is biological,
} I can't quite bring myself to see eye-to-eye with the Doctrine of
} Homosexuality.  If it is biological, this means that it is part of the plan
} of God, God created these people with their specific color hair, specific
} color eyes, and yes, with their sexual orientation.  Isn't it ridiculous to
} say to a person, we accept you for who you are (that being homosexual) but
} we ask you to deny those basic human urges (that being sexuality) that you
} have instinctively (because you are born with your orientation).  This is
} the greatest argument FOR homosexual unions.  If we wish to support the
}-- End of excerpt from "(David Jansing)"

	Whoa, there!  Just because God made you a certain way doesn't
imply he will you do certain things.  For example, if a (heterosexual)
male has incredible libido and wants to go impregnate a different woman
every night, by your argument above God made him that way so it's okay.

	The point is, being homosexual is a cross to bear; from what I
can see, a rather heavy one.  Nevertheless, the teachings of Jesus and
His Church are quite clear.

	There are a number of dioceses doing very good outreach work.
There was an article in Our Sunday Visitor a few weeks ago about the
work of Courage, a ministry for gays to help them live celibate lives
in accord with Church teaching.

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.
Use GOTOs only to implement a fundamental structure.
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Protestants and Catholics (Was: Sinead O'Connor)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:09:42 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <oneil.718438251@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

|> I don't consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be different religions: 
|> both are forms of Christian expression.  However, let's admit that 
|> Catholics and Protestants have often had a very difficult time sharing 
|> space.  (Take North Ireland for an example.  Or Yugoslavia.)
|> 
	It is Catholics vs. Orthodox in Yugoslavia.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:49:48 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests

> The Eucharist itself is the most
> intimate act between Christ, Who is the Bridegroom, and His Church, Who
> is the Bride.  A woman cannot act in the person of the Bridegroom.

My biggest objection to this argument is that it is asymmetrical.  Men have
no problem acting in the person of the Bride in receiving the Eucharist,
correct?  If a man can personify the Bride, why cannot a woman personify the
Bridegroom?

Consider also Galatians 3:28; "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female: for you are all
one in Christ Jesus."


Peace,

Amanda Walker
--
"There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every purpose
 under heaven."         --Ecclesiastes 3:1
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:07:16 -0500
Reply-To:     sdl@austin.ibm.com
From:         "(sdl)" <sdl@AUSTIN.IBM.COM>
Subject:      women priests (yet again)
              14 Oct 1992 18:52:14 GMT
              <9210142156.AA10441@netmail.austin.ibm.com>

> Good question. In fact, given the wide range of beliefs tolerated by that
> communion, it's surprising that they speak of priests at all.
                                                ^^^^^^^

This leads to a question which I'd like to hear what others think.  As
I recall, in "official" documents the term for this office is
"presbyter", is it not?

In Spanish, it seems that the most commonly used term is "father"
(padre), and the term "priest" (sacerdote <sp?>) seems fairly rare, in
my experience anyway.  What about other languages?

I myself am not entirely comfortable with the use of "priest" instead
of "presbyter".  There is only one priest (Christ), and the presider
at the liturgy is not a "priest" in the general cultic sense (i.e. as
a intermediary between God and people).  Moreover, I think the meaning
of "priest" in this general sense understood in general use, and thus
tends to distort the understanding of the role in the Catholic church.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Linam   AWSD Austin  T/L: 678-3308  Bell-net: (512) 838-3308
sdl@austin.ibm.com                         IBM VNET: LINAM at AUSTIN
Quae narravi, nullo modo negabo.               I don't speak for IBM

(Cute latin phrase shamelessly stolen from the NCR "sic" column, and
they, not I, assume all responsiblity for errors therein).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.
Phone: (716) 477-3067
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1907
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:37:07 -0500
Reply-To:     gerwitz@Kodak.COM
From:         Paul Gerwitz <gerwitz@KODAK.COM>
Subject:      Re: LATIN & the Church
              at Oct 16, 92 02:55:27 pm

>
> I care.  But I disagree that Latin, or the liturgy, or even the Mass is
> anywhere near the fullest expression of our faith.  The fullest
> expression of our faith is how we treat other PEOPLE in our daily life.
> We are called by the church to take Christ's message of love to the whole
> world. That is how we are to express our faith.  The Mass is one support
> mechanism that Jesus provided, but it is not the end in an of itself.  And
> even less so Latin.  If the Pope says tomorrow that Swahili is to be the
> language of the church I'm going for a Berlitz Swahili book asap.
>
> Arguing over whether HOMO should be best translated 'male person' (implied
> by 'man') or 'human'.  Sheeesh.  Color me disillusioned.
>
> The most beautiful Latin High Mass can be but a gong sounding in the wind
> if it doesn't move us to service of our fellow humans.  'the Mass' should
> not be an object of reverence.  It IS a place where we can strengthen our
> faith, but listen for the message, not the medium.
>

I'm not disagreeing, just a further observation, from one who spends more
time thinking than talking (that's why I don't post often) ;-)

To me, the fullest expression of my faith is the relationship I have with
Jesus, my savior.  And what better way there is than to engage every
opportunity to be present with him whether it be in mass, in prayer, while
riding in my car listening to music and singing His praises.  If I can have
the fullest relationship with Him, the it comes naturally that I will be a
light to the world, I won't even have to work hard at 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
Return-Path: mayo%cs.utk.edu@mathcs.emory.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:27:48 EDT
Comments:     Resent-From: <catholic@dragon.COM>
Comments:     Originally-From: mayo%cs.utk.edu@mathcs.emory.edu
From:         catholic@DRAGON.COM
Subject:      Fatima Prayers

Tomorrow is the 75th anniversary of the last apparition of Our Lady to the
three children at Fatima, Portugal.  Following are the Fatima prayers that
Mary has asked that we pray often, especially when offering adoration to
our Blessed Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament.

*** TWO PRAYERS TAUGHT BY THE ANGEL (1916)
   O my God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you.  I beg pardon for
   those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust, and do not love you.
   (Repeat three times.)

   O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore You profoundly.
   I offer you the most precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus
   Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world in reparation for the
   outrages, sacrileges, and indifference by which He is offended.  Through
   the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart
   of Mary, I beg the conversion of sinners.  (Repeat three times.)

*** TWO PRAYERS TAUGHT BY OUR LADY OF FATIMA (1917)
  (Adoration Prayer)
   O Most Holy Trinity, I adore You.  My God, my God, I love You in the Most
   Blessed Sacrament.

  (Decade Rosary Prayer)
   O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all
   souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

*** REQUEST MADE BY OUR LADY OF FATIMA, JULY 13, 1917
  (Sacrifice Prayer)
  "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially whenever
   you make some sacrifice:  O Jesus, it is for love of You, for conversation
   of sinners, and in reparation for the offenses committed against the
   Immaculate Heart of Mary."

*    *    *    *    *    *    *   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
I have mailed the "Secret of the Rosary" book to those who requested it.  If
there is someone else who wants one or more, please send me private e-mail.
If your book doesn't arrive in a few days, let me know.  It is possible I
skipped someone on the list.  God Bless you.

J. Wallace Mayo		| Jesus, Redeemer, have mercy on me
mayo@cs.utk.edu		|    and set me free.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:49:03 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Altar girls

On Oct 6,  7:37pm, "(David Jansing)" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones
}
} Have we become so obsessed with our own _Earthly_ laws that we have completely
} missed the picture and are now condeming children to Hell?!?!?  This is not
} the example that we are setting.  We are setting an example that all of the
} People of God (this includes women!) can be free to celebrate together in the
} worship of the Lord.  We are _NOT_ breaking any rules by having women cross-
} bearers, or women servers.  It is against Canon Law to have women Acolytes, as
} this is an ordained(sp?) ministry (one of the many steps to priesthood).
} Having
} women servers is NOT the same as having women acolytes.  I believe that there
} is a Scripture passage that says that Christ came to instill one commandment,
} that we love one another and that we are no longer slaves, for a slave knows
} not what his master does; that we are friends of Christ.  I don't believe
} (in the interpretation I have been given) that Christ says that we are all
} his friends, except women; women are slaves.  This is NOT what Christ says.
} Therefore, all of the people are free to worship and serve in the ministry of
} the Lord.  Besides, it is STUPID to allow women as ministers of the Eucharist
} (completely allowed in Canon Law) but we can't have women serving the altar.
} This makes no sense.  Why does it make no sense?  See the reason labeled
} above.

	Are you saying that because YOU don't understandthe reasons why,
or disagree, that that makes altar girls legitimate?  Interesting point
of view.  I will point out that the Pope inthe document "Inaestimabile
Donam" of 1980 (?) expressly forbade women as altar servers.  If you
choose to disobey the teachings of the Church it's your decision --
but don't try to pretend you aren't being disobedient.
}
} Because God knows that the Church has had its own agenda many times with its
} History and the agenda has not always been according to the Scripture or the
} Gospel message.  I am sure He probably realizes that even now.  Don't confuse
} infallablity with the actions of the Church.  We have had too many instances
} in our History of the Church not acting as a member of the body of Christ.

	Are you saying that the possibility that members of the Church may
act unjustly justifies disobeying Church teaching?
}-- End of excerpt from "(David Jansing)"



--
* 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.
Deprive a mirror of its silver and even the Czar won't see his face.
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Ratzinger (was: Homosexuality)
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:15:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-18963]: okeanos

In article <Bvyy7p.26w@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>   It would be uncharitable to say the Prefect of the Sacred
>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is calling homosexuals
>"sickos," especially since he was using a technical term.

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Given Ratzinger's past as an honored member
of the Hitler Youth, I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute
such a opinion to him; and I think it's important to understand the
biases of the people purporting to advise the Pope in moral matters.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that his appointment to the head of the
CDF (Holy Office) was a mistake.  He displays a distinct tendency to
repress legitimate variety and honest pursuit of the truth.  He's been
mentioned as a possible Pope on Buehler's mailing list; and, although
I believe his past makes this unlikely at best, the very thought sends
shudders down my spine.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jrussell@unlinfo.unl.edu (john russell)
Subject: Re: Where can I find...
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:27:00 GMT

Thanks to those who replied to my question about finding a
Liber Usualis. I will indeed check with Loome's and GIA.

John R.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:01:22 -0400
From:         "(Amanda Walker)" <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject: Re: Stay or leave

Gordon Zaft wrote:

	As I'm sure you are aware, no one can make this choice but you.
	It seems to me you should spend some real quality time in prayer
	about it; perhaps go on a retreat?

I strongly concur.  This is not the kind of choice to make quickly or
easily.  I have at least one very close friend who has been facing this
issue recently, and I myself have faced similar choices in my life.
While advice and insight from others can be very helpful, in the end
no amount of counsel will let you avoid the fact that it is up to you.

The very act of prayer and self-examination will bring new insights
and perspective--some may be positive, some may not be.  In any case,
approach it with care, and pray for guidance.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:32:40 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      RE: stay or leave... opinions?

Donna Nitchie (dmczap@WOOKIE.CAMBRIDGE.IBM.COM) writes of her dilemma of how
often her personal beliefs conflict with the tenets of the Roman Catholic church
and what she feels her alternatives are.  In particular she sees one as:

>3) Respectfully leave the RCC, saying I can't buy EVERYTHING, so I'll join some
>other denomination that more closely fits my struggles and beliefs.

I think this is often a good choice.  It seems hypocritical to continue to
profess unity with a denomination with which you are not truly unified.  That's
the choice I made some years ago.  So much of the faith professed by the RC
church was good, but so much of the implemenation seemed faulty, that I had to
seek another denomination.  The Episcopal church seems to me to share so much of
that catholic faith, yet places the responsibility of one's relationship with
God squarely on one's own shoulders (where I feel it should be) that I found the
transition natural and rewarding.

I think your choice 2 ("Accept EVERYTHING the RCC teaches and thus continue my
standing as a RC") would be the least desirable, as this necessitates that you
lie to yourself in order to attain the necessary frame of mind.  Besides, the
church herself has admitted, over time, that personal conscience can be a
deciding factor on many issues.  This is acceptance by the church of your first
possibility ("Continue to disagree w/ some things, but also continue to actively
participate in the Church, and retain my claim to be RC").  It's the "some
things" you must actively attempt to reconcile with the teachings about which
the church demands strict compliance.  That takes homework and research.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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: pvisel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick E Visel)
Subject: Re: women priests
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.150335.17084@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>
>    I am a newcomer to this group (just since it appeared on Internet),
>so excuse me if I am going over old ground here.
 [stuff deleted]>
>    Is there any reason that there has never been a woman Cardinal?  
>There certainly have been laymen who have been Cardinals, and as the 
>only function of a Cardinal is to be a Papal elector, would it not seem 
>appropriate for the Church to show that it is not merely being 
>anti-woman (in regards the issue of women priests) by naming some women 
>as Cardinals?
>

  riginally circa 11-12 cent. the official title of a Cardinal was 
"Cardinal priest of the parish of (such and such, a roman parish)" and there
 were also Cardinal Deacons (which kind of died out with the permanant
deaconate over the years).  I thought that this was still the official title
(correct me if I am wrong).  Since the creation of the college of Cardinals
was simply a way of regularizing the election of the Popes and an attempt
to eliminate corruption (moderately successful in the long run),  it probably
could be changed again, but they should not use the term Cardinal (IMHO),
(at least not unless they decide to allow women priests, which I consider
unlikely.)
                                         Patrick Visel
From: v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: stay or leave... opinions?
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:50:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct09.135905.35423@watson.ibm.com>, dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com (Donna Nitchie) writes...

[ dilemma deleted ]

>So what do readers suggest or advise of someone in such a situation? Does 
>anyone know what the RCC suggests someone in my situation do? I haven't 
>asked a priest or bishop or (pick your favorite RC official)....

I think it would really be a mistake to stay if you disagreed with
things that Catholics have to agree with the be true Catholics.
But not all the things you mentioned are of that sort.

There's another thing.  I can't figure out how to say it without
sounding condescending, but I honestly don't mean it that way.
Maybe you're wrong about the things you disagree about.  Think of
it this way--the RC Church seems to have so much wisdom and goodness
(otherwise why would you be in it?), so maybe it deserves the benefit
of the doubt.  I do NOT mean:  so therefore turn off your brain.
I mean:  look again.  Find out why the RC Church teaches those things.
Keep in mind that a lot of what we read in the popular press (I include
the popular religious press) isn't very accurate.  If you look into
it, you might find that you agree with at least some of these things
after all.

And pray for guidance on these matters.  Many of our
beliefs are more self-serving than we realize, and it can take a lot
of sacrifice to believe what the Church teaches sometimes.  This doesn't
just apply to people who are of liberal leanings--look at how much trouble
a lot of right-wing Catholics have in accepting Church teachings on war
and economics!

Anyway, I don't want to come off sounding superior.  I only write this
becuase I have found in my own experience that some Church teachings
that seemed wrong turned out to be pretty good, and that the reason
I couldn't accept them was that they were too hard for me.

But maybe you've done all this--I don't mean to say that I know what's
in your heart.

Have I apologized enough?  8-)

By the way, I don't think there's a complete and unambiguous 
list of beliefs that everyone must accept to be an RC. 
If you don't believe that adultery is wrong or that 
Jesus is God or that the Pope is the head of the Church, then
obviously you aren't Catholic.  If you don't believe that dropping
nuclear bombs on entire cities is wrong, then you're still a Catholic
probably, but you're getting near the edge [flames on this point may
be directed to v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu -- but read Gaudium
et Spes para. 80 first].  If you don't agree about altar girls, then
I hardly think that disqualifies you from being a Catholic.  But anyway,
I don't think that there is a Church teaching that declares exactly
which Church teachings must be accepted!  Some you clearly must
accept, others you don't need to, and others are fuzzy.  Don't
leave the Church for the wrong reason!  We need you....

w/ prayers

pax

Michael G.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU