HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: RE: Separating our kids from public schools
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:10:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"

Brent,
I support both the liberal and conservative teachers in our public schools.
I would contend that most of them do support "traditional Christian values"
in thier own lives. Why bring in a special speaker if they can speak to the
issue themselves. I think you have a wrong impression of what goes on in
the typical public classroom, it is not some heathen orgy. My children spend
most of their time learning the three-R's, not developing pagan morals. You
and Cal seem to give the impression that you can shelter your children from
learning "bad morals" by sending them to a private school. I don't think
that is a realistic nor a Christian attitude. If all the "good" parents
pulled their kids outof public school, those that would be left would not
have the example to follow of the kids from "good" parents. This isolationist
policy of education would not spread the Christian message to the young
where peer pressure is one of the major contributors to behavior.
Then again, maybe I can convince you by saying that I am the product of
18 years of Catholic education:-)
BTW, I thought the pope was elected:-) -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:46:20 -0500
From:         Michael I Bushnell <mib@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Public worship
              x8425"'s message of Wed,
              18 Nov 1992 16:30:24 EST
              <9211190703.AA13572@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

   From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,              x8425"
 <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>

   A couple of days ago, the Court of Appeals decided that the two
   lower courts were in error, that the menorah display was
   constitutional for the very simple reason that the city had a
   policy of allowing private groups to erect displays on the plaza
   and they couldn't single out the Jewish group simply because it was
   religious.

That's not inconsistent with what I read.  In the Boston Common, most
groups are *not* allowed to erect displays and leave them there.  As a
result, an exception for a creche is illegal.  On the other hand, when
anyone is allowed to erect displays, then religous groups cannot be
prevented from doing so.

        -mib
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CATHOLIC@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:04:27 PST
From:         J Scott Berg <ALHY@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pastoral letter
              20 Nov 92 13:41:40 -1000."
              <7469FAF020E0E1AC@SCS.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>

In your message of Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:41:40 -1000 Len Howard writes:

>    But I guess there is a different authoritarian relationship isn't
> there?  Seems too bad that a group of men half way round the world who
> speak a different language can have such an influence on the American
> Church, eh?

I'm all for it.  Doctrine often has a cultural independence and
universality to it, so I'm thrilled with the idea that people who
aren't my next-door neighbors have something to do with its
formulation.

Look at Paul's letters.  First Corinthians is a great example.  He's
not looking for the people's approval for what he's telling them.  No,
in fact he is TELLING them what is right.  He reminds them to stick to
what they were taught!

Note that there is certainly support for the statement that the Church
"as a whole" cannot err in matters of faith and morals.  But that "as
a whole" must include the hierarchy as well as the laity.

Anyhow, since I didn't see the post that started this reply chain, I'm
probably way off the topic anyhow.  Hope this was helpful.  God bless

                                -Scott Berg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed here are, of course, my own and nobody else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Berg
email: ALHY@slac.stanford.edu
real mail: Varian Physics
           Stanford  CA  94305-4060
phone:  (415) 926-4732 (w)
        (415) 326-2631 (h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Anti-Catholic minorities (Was: Reply from NBC re: Sinead 
 O'Connor)
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:10:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov18.012915.10961@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:

> The majority works to take
> care of its own; it is the minorities that need extra protection to avoid
> being oppressed by the majority.

Not at Dartmouth.  The homosexuals' student group (DAGLO) has been
allowed to present its views freely, while those opposing homosexuality
have been censured and threatened with suspension from the College.  I
already mentioned the series of X-rated cartoons run in a DAGLO
publication mocking the Catholic position on sexuality.  However, on
Columbus Day, all the minority student groups (including groups
representing homosexuals) got together to protest Columbus Day.  While
one may argue that European exploration was bad for those were here
before Columbus (but that is not the thrust of this posting), the
speaker from the homosexual group tried to equate Columbus Day, and the
celebration of it, with being biased against lesbianism.  Huh??  These
students were even allowed to speak on the steps of the building where
the president's office is located; they were also given the use of PA
equipment.

Meanwhile, those who say homosexuality is wrong (without even attacking
individual homosexuals in words) get editorials published in the
student newspaper saying how terrible they are for their 'homophobia'
and have signs put up all over the place by groups like DAGLO
vehemently attacking them for being 'homophobic'.  And you say the
minorities' interests aren't represented?

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: mark@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Szymczak)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:53:45 GMT
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

bthoms@waikato.ac.nz writes:

>If you truly love Jesus, and believe him, and believe in him, how could you
>speak of being "revolted" by people who are oppressed by society. I know the
>love the sinner/hate the sin nonsense, but the reality is that homophobia *is*
>a disorder, homosexuality isn't, but when people have to live their whole lives
>amongst rabid homophobes, don't expect them to be happy all the time.
>Christians have an obligation to recognise that society treats gays and
>lesbians appallingly (and often in subliminal oppression), and, by supporting
>the oppressed, turn the tide of suicide, substance dependency and depression
>that result for homophobia. 
>............was no gay or lesbian culture in biblical times, and no concept of gay human
>rights. When you take out temple prostitution and rules for a people marching
>for thier lives out of a desert and insert loving, nurturing and useful
>same-sex relationships conducted with dignity and respect within a Christian
>community, it should give pause for more thought.



Dear Brent,  
	I would like to express my opinion in an open letter to this group 
regarding one or two points you have raised. 

You mention that homosexuality is not a disorder and that it is
perhaps really homophobia (fear of homosexuals) which is a disorder.
I think it is necessary to differentiate between the homosexual
condition and the homosexual act. The homosexual condition is 
had by those who feel a physical attraction to persons of the 
same sex and homosexual acts are (usually sodomy) genital 
acts performed by persons of the same sex. 

Given the above definitions, it can be seen that one can be 
homosexual and yet not engage in homosexual acts, and also 
one can engage in homosexual acts and not be homosexual. 

Since by nature, sexual differentitation between man and 
woman is directed towards the love and life giving faculty of 
the human race, it is the homosexual act which is a disorder.


Mark
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Subject: Re:      Anglican Uniate Church proposed
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:12:04 GMT

More power to re-unification.  One of our priests has predicted (as personal opinion) that the breakdown of the atheist state of the USSR will result in enhancement of the Catholic Church - his theory being that only the Catholics have bridges to talk both to the Orthodox and to the Protestants with understanding.  The acceptance of another Uniate Church would visibly open the option to others of our separated siblings (I dare not say "brethern" for fear of charges of sexism).  Wouldn't it be wonderful to 


see Uniate churches from among the Orthodox and Lutheran churches as well as the Anglican?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Defined teaches (was Re: Ordination of women)
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.123348.7972@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) w42116.AA01755@caritas.cotdazr.org>,         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
>
>    No, I was not saying that.  I was just reacting to some of the
>postings which, to me, seemed to be arguing that the issue of male-
>only priesthood was a completely resolved issue, as if it were an
>infallible pronouncement.  This was particularly interesting to me
>when, at the same time, several people were pointing out that the
>Galileo case did not involve an infallible pronouncement.
>

    There's a point of logic I'd like to address.  If there were an
infallible pronouncement, such as an ex cathedra declaration, the 
matter would be settled.  Thus, such a pronouncement is sufficient
to settle an issue.  But is it necessary?  Is one free to question 
or deny any teaching whatsoever just so long as it has not been
proclaimed as an infallible pronouncement?  (Obviously, I don't think
so, but I certainly would appreciate better-informed discussion on 
this.)  By the way, this latter tack seems to be that taken by 
Fr. Curran.  Are his contentions then valid?


>Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
>Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
>University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA


John Rickert					Praestet fides supplementum
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		sensuum defectui.
							-- S. Thomas

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Importing priests
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:21:10 GMT

(Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   Actually, I think Gordon may have a point here, although I'm not so
>sure it has to do with validity of orders.  There is a canon (I don't
>have my book handy) that says basically that refusing to celebrate
>Mass with Catholics in good standing is an act of schism.
>
>   Therefore, by rejecting a black priest, such people would liably be
>guilty of schism, in addition to the sin of racism.  I'll try to find
>the canon tonight.

How about these (there may be others):

Can 208  Flowing from their rebirth in Christ, there is a genuine
equality of dignity and action among all of Christ's faithful.  Because
of this equality they all contribute, each according to his or her own
condition and office, to the building up of the Body of Christ.

Can 209  1. Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion
with the Church at all times, and even in their external actions.
 2.  They are to carry out with the greatest diligence their
responsibilities toward the universal Church and the particular
Church to which by law they belong.
 
Or, if things got ugly,

Can 1375 - Those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or or an election
or of the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or the lawful use of
sacred or ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidate either an elector or
one who is elected or one who exercises ecclesiastical power or ministry,
may be punished with a just penalty.

So, maybe a case could be made by one of these, but that is missing the
point isn't it Steve?  Here would be a case of clear lack of love, and
that surely is the greater sin, and the motive for even having these
canon laws.  So why would one want to 'threaten' with these laws when
guidance to a more loving attitude would be more appropriate?  We don't
need to back up something this clear by dragging of the Book of Canon
Law and waving it as something to fear.  Better to bring out the Good
Book and highlight examples of brotherhood and acceptance.

Which sounds better to you,

"OK, rather than be excommunicated I'll go to Mass celeberated by Fr.X, but
I don't have to like it"  or

"OK, I admit my prejudice, and I'll go to Mass and try to work on
accepting Fr. X, even though I can't accept a black man as my pastor today."

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
Apparently-To: catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:39:34 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 19-Nov-1992 2029" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Priest shortage

>Ok.  I'll check further because I believe that the RC church does not
>re-ordain transfers.

The Roman Catholic Church does reordain converting Episcopal priests.

However, the following is interesting:

La lettre du cardinal Willebrands, president du Secretariat pour l'Unite,
en date du 13 juillet 1986, declarait:

Nous attendons l'expression du consensus de la Communion anglicane
quand les eveques de cette Communion se reuniront pur la Conference de
Lambeth en 1988... Si, a la fin de ce processus d'evaluation la Communion
anglicane comme telle, est en mesure de declarer formellement qu'elle
professe la meme foi... en ce qui concerne l'Eucharistie et le ministere
ordonne, l'Eglise catholique romaine reconnaitrait la possibilite que
dans le contexte d'une telle profession de foi, le texte de l'Ordinal
pourrait ne plus contenir cette nativa indoles (caractere originel) qui
etait a la base du jugement du Pape Leon Xiii.  Une telle profession de
foi pourrait ouvrir la voie a un nouvel examen de l'Ordinal... examen
que pourrait mener a une nouvelle evaluation par l'Eglise catholique du
caractere suffisant de ces rites anglicans pour autant qu'ils concernent
des ordinations futures (cf. DO no 1915, du 6 avril 1968 p. 354-355).

As far as I know, Lambeth didn't, in 1988, make a declaration considered
by Rome to be sufficient for a reexamination of the declaration of nullity
of the Anglican orders.

/john
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:59:33 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Cd. Mahony on the new Missal

Let me repost something:

Bob von Buelow quotes Gordon's post:

>Proposed new translation:               Current version:
>
>Our Father in heaven,                   Our Father, who art in heaven,
>hallowed be your name,                  hallowed by thy name,
>your kingdom come,                      thy kingdom come,
>your will be done,                      thy will be done,
>on earth as in heaven.                  on earth as it is in heaven.
>Give today our daily bread.             Give us this day our daily bread.
>Forgive us our sins                     And forgive us our trespasses
>as we forgive those who sin against us. as we forgive those who trespass
>Save us from the time of trial          against us.
>and deliver us from evil.               And lead us not into temptation,
>For the kingdom, the power, and the     but deliver us from evil.
>glory are yours

Guess what!  The translation on the *left* has been in use in the Episcopal
church since the 1978 BCP was authorized.  It's the only one we use at our
parish.


-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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: ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Cardinal Ratzinger
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:38:31 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia) writes:

>I am one of those that love Msgr. Ratzinger's teachings and I do not
>see what is wrong with what he said. Although it is in the bible that
>"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I shall be in their
>midst.", the focus on the community is not complete unless God's 
>presence is not acknowledged. This is what I think is very different

OOPS! I meant "...God's presence is acknowledged..."

>between the protestant churches and the catholic church (pardon the
>small case, I'm not up to it), that the protestant churches focus on
>the liturgy and its application to the people's lives. In essence, 
>the liturgy has stopped lighting fires in their hearts and has
>become an instruction manual for going to heaven. The point, in my
>own arrogant opinion (perhaps), is missed as to why one should
>strive to reach heaven. Is it not the eternal company of God, in his
>love, and not because it is "nice" to be in heaven. In this sense,
>if we do not remember that we congregate for God, with God, then
>we congregate for nothing (except for socials).

>With arrogant humility,
>Angelo Paguia

Me again.
Angelo
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Apparently-To: anglican@american.edu, catholic@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:10:47 PST
From:         "John R. Covert 17-Nov-1992 1143" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Unity is a pre-requisite to the Eucharist

One of the sad things that has happened in the Anglican Communion is that
the entire concept of what the word "Communion" means has been lost.

Reception of the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament which not only imparts to
us the grace of receiving Christ's Body and Blood, it is a sign of our
unity of faith.  The great sign, in fact.

We lost sight of this when we decided, in the early seventies, to admit
all baptized Christians to communion in our parishes.  Prior to this,
we required that our children or new converts to the Catholic Faith be
confirmed, and even required that people who wished to be received from
other parts of the Catholic Church (who had already received the sacrament
of Confirmation) be received by the Bishop into the unity of the Church.

Allowing women, regardless of how excellent they might be as counselors,
Christian teachers, witnesses to the faith, lay pastors, or other legitimate
roles, to presume to celebrate this great sacrament of unity when, in fact,
their doing so has created more disunity than anything since the Roundheads
tried to make the Church of England Puritan is the greatest burden to have
been placed upon Anglicanism since Augustine became the first Archbishop of
Canterbury 1400 years ago.

/john
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Pastoral letter
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:38:05 GMT

In article <9211180833.AA12991@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Ted, How long do you think it will be before the American Catholic
>Church splits off from Rome?........Just a thought for consideration.
>The ordination of women and stand on birth control are two areas of
>great disagreement.  I would not be at all surprised to see this split
>take place in my lifetime.  And I am 59 now.

   I disagree very much.  For one thing, on both of those issues
(certainly on women's ordination) the vast majority of American
bishops agree with the teaching of the universal Church.  The latter
is such a minor issue theologically that no one is going to form a new
church over it.

   The disagreement of which you speak is more among the laity and
some priests.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 27
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:28:45 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


                    Friday, November 27, 1992

Revelation 20:1-4, 11--21:2                     Luke 21:29-33
                            Psalm 84

                           PASSED AWAY

"My words will not pass." --Luke 21:33

To describe death, we say: "He passed away."  "The heavens and earth will pass
away" (Lk 21:33; Rv 21:1).  "Created things will pass away" (Heb 12:27).  "The
world with its seduction is passing away" (I Cor 7:31).  Almost everything is
passing away.

All this passing away is a terrible problem for all human beings, for the Lord
"has put the timeless" into our heart (Eccl 3:11).  Our heart for the timeless
is threatened and disturbed by all this passing away.  This interior conflict
is resolved by the few things that don't pass away.  God doesn't pass away, and
His word and kingdom don't pass away (Heb 12:28).  Even we don't pass away.
Although our bodies temporarily pass away. they will be raised up on the last
day.  And our spirits at death can immediately go to heaven.  So they don't
experience even a temporary passing.

Whenever you hear the term "passed away," smile inside, for God, His word,
His kingdom, and you will never pass away.  Alleluia!  Praise Jesus, the
Resurrection and the Life! (Jn 11:25)


Prayer:  Jesus, thank You for everlasting life.

Promise: "Then I saw new heavens and a new earth."  Rv 21:1

Praise:  Though her friends and family have died, Sarah looks forward to each
         day--and the last day.
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
From: 31babik@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: New Catechism
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:33:59 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <Bxs8Kz.3H1@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v201lrxa@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (NOWHERE MAN) writes:
> I just heard on NBC Nightly News that the Church will be introducing
> a new Catechism that is supposed to contain the biggest changes since
> the Council of Trent. Some of the new sins described within are tax
> evasion and genetic manipulation. Anyone have any more details?
> 
> mike


I was just about to post about a query as to whether or not anyone had 
heard anything new recently.

When I was in RCIA last year we were told of the coming of the "Universal 
Catechism."  It is supposedly going to have a large section on the church's 
view on many social issues, such as tax evasion and genetic manipulation.

I, personally, am waiting anxiously for news that it is actually out.  Did 
the broadcast happen to mention when the new catechism would be available?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Lisamarie Babik
                      31babik@gw.wmich.edu

    "Faith is to believe what we do not see, and the reward of this
                faith is to see what we believe..."
			-St. Augustine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic