HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: fasting
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:36:53 GMT

In article <01GPMG3WFMSW8WWAWH@umassd.edu> Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.EDU> writes:
>>2) If you are doing it without spritual direction, don't overburden yourself.
>>There is very great spiritual danger to undirected asceticism.
>>Peace
>>John
>
>Could you please expand on this a bit.
>
All I meant when I wrote the above is that undirected asceticism can get out
of hand.  By its very nature asceticism puts a certain burden on the one who
engages in it.  Objectivity can suffer, and psychological problems develop,
e.g. scrupulosity with respect to what one is enganging in.  Unless one
has someone to remind them, the person practicing the asceticism can forget
the good reasons for it; they can begin to put more emphasis on the suffering
than is warranted- if a little suffering is good, maybe more is better, and then
more and then more, spiraling toward an unhealthy practice.
Peace,
John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:41:02 EDT
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones update
              9 Oct 1992 01:41:05 GMT from <stabosz@CHOPIN.UDEL.EDU>

On Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:41:05 GMT (Rae Stabosz) said:
>                          We have only lived in the twentieth
>century, those of us reading this newsgroup.  Are we so sure of
>our understanding of gender that we are willing to pass judgment
>on so many centuries of alternate thought?  Is that not something
>dangerous -- century-ism -- the belief that our century is the best, the
>most-englightened one?

We have the advantage of knowing about the past, and being able to
compare our actions to theirs. If we are performing worse, we can see
that and change. We do not have the ability to look ahead in time, and
compare our actions against those in the future.

We may be doing some really horrible things, as judged by the enlightened
people in the future ("Can you believe they gave poison to their
criminals, and ate animal flesh as food?") but we have no way of knowing
that. We can, however, evaluate our actions against the past and
hopefully arrive at the best possible behaviour of which we are capable.

It would be wrong to think that because we today realize that freedom is
a basic component of what it means to be human, that this says anything
bad about the people in the past. Paul tolerated slavery because there
was no concept in his time that it might have been wrong. It would be
wrong for us, with our twentieth century understanding of what it means
to be human, to have slaves, but it was certainly not wrong for him to
send Onesimus back to Philemon.

The fact the people in the past did not consider women to be competent to
vote, be on juries, own property or be priests does not mean that such
behavior need continue as we begin to understand the full personhood of
women. It does not condemn the people in the past, but it does condemn us
if we gain this new understanding but do not act on it.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: translation
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:19:13 GMT

Dear friends: the Latin reads "Verbum Domini". There is no verb. This is not to
comment on the merits of different translations.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: pvisel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick E Visel)
Subject: Re: mysticism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:20:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.161408.922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt) writes:
>
>I do in fact pray the rosary, and I consider it a *prayer* not a mantra or 
>chant. The repitition of all those Hail Marys serves in my case to help
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the sincerity of my prayer. In other words, if I'm not in the mood or not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>really serious or distracted, the 53 Hail Marys will get me in the mood,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^>serious, and focused. I do try to consider all the words and meanings, but 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                                      
>obviously I don't always succeed. I always find that after I finish the
>rosary I'm having a much better conversation with God :)
>
>
>Karl Schudt
>A Young Fuddy-Duddy

  Actually this is exactly what a mantra tries to do. (the ends that you put
 this focus to might differ).  I really think you're getting hung up on the
 source of the word "mantra" more than anything else.
                                            Patrick Visel
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: casmith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (CatherineArnott Smith)
Subject: Medical advances
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:41:58 GMT

I would love to see the opinions of folks on this listserv on the church's
position re artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization.  To tell you
the truth, this and Holy Communion have posed the two greatest obstacles to me
in my understanding Catholicism.  Reader's Digest version of my faith: I am
the child of parents who left the church when I was six because they could not
agree with the teachings on birth control.  As a result, while I was
baptized Catholic, I was effectively raised Episcopalian and have been an
active member of that church most of my adult life.  My parents and much
younger sister went back to the RC about five years ago and have been very
happy there, with the result that our family gatherings are, er, tense, with
my mom urging my husband and I to consider Catholicism (he is a professional
church musician and so has very little choice as to denomination, so it's a
moot point).

I am attracted to much of what the church says and stands for.  For one thing,
I'm anti-abortion, which is difficult to be as a young, female Episcopalian. 
But I am also a member of an infertile couple, and what I have read about the
Pope's standing on reproductive technologies makes me, to put it mildly, fume.
It is very difficult for me to understand why the Catholic Church has a
problem with my trying to have my husband's child.  We're not talking genetic
manipulation here. We're not talking cloning. I'm not a single parent, even. 
And as any farmer can tell you, there is nothing "artificial" about artificial
insemination at all.  All ingredients are natural.  It's the DELIVERY that is
artificial. 

God gave us physicians, no? 

Catherine Arnott Smith
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:15:29 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Some questions

Excerpts from catholic: 15-Oct-92 Some questions Wayne J.
Warf@SILVER.UCS (2402)

> Current situation:

> I'm a doctoral student and engaged to be married next June. My fiancee,
> born a Methodist, has decided to convert to the RCC. We've started
> attending Mass and RCIA together at the campus Newman center. This is
> where the questions come in. I'd like to know if certain practices are
> common that I've seen here. I've never seen them elsewhere.

Sounds to me like this church has received de facto excommunication from
the Roman Catholic Church.

> For example, the last Mass we attended:

> -the penitential rite was omitted

I do not know for sure, but I do not believe the priest may omit the
penitential rite.

> -the creed was omitted

DEFINTELY not permitted.  I've experienced this before.  The Creed
CANNOT be omitted even by permission of the Bishop.

> -the gospel reading was an "adaptation" that I can only describe as a
>  skit or caricature; it was done with Christ and the Apostles doing
>  street talk. It was very uncomfortable to me and felt almost like a
>  personal violation.

Sounds like more heresy to me.  This is expressly against liturgical norms.

> In RCIA last night on a discussion of the sacraments:

> -It was stated as a matter of fact that the RCC has never taught that
>  intentionally and habitually missing Mass was a serious enough sin
>  <or a sin at all, was the implication> to disable one from receiving
>  Holy Communion without first receiving absolutionThe statement
>  made was that even if someone decides not to go to Mass for 20 years,
>  they could receive Communion without seeking rReconciliation first.

They are most certainly wrong, this always has been (well, for 1500
years) and continues to be a grave (mortal) sin.

> -One participant related how an acquaitance's husband was denied
>  Communion by a pastor who knew he had not attended Mass for a
>  number of years and had not received absolution. The speaker
>  accused the pastor of being a "bad priest".

The pastor was on the contrary a good priest and looking out for the
soul of the communicant.

> -It was stated that the precept requiring receiving of the Eucharist
>  during Easter time was, "to encourage people to show up at least
>  once a year," but was not binding.

It is binding still, has been for at least a thousand years, so stated
by at least one council.

> Everyone there is apparently comfortable with these teachings except
> me. Is my catechism out of date? Am I just a victim of my background?

You are a victim of serious modernist heresies.  I'd complain to the
bishop and find another church.  But pray for this one.

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Cardinals
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:48:12 GMT

pvisel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick E Visel) writes:
> [Cardinal stuff deleted]
Just FYI

Can. 350 1. The College of Cardinals is divided into three orders: the
episcopal order, to which belong those Cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff
assigns the title of a suburbicarian Church, the eastern-rite Patriarchs
who are made members of the College of Cardinals; the presbyteral order,
and the deaconal order.
 2.  Cardinal priests and Cardinal deacons are each assigned a title or a
deaconry in Rome by the Roman Pontiff.
 3. Eastern Patriarchs within the College of Cardinals have their
patriarchal see as a title.
 ...

Can. 351 1. Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the
Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly
outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters;
those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
...

So we have Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Deacons. Other
canons go on to rigorously define this pecking order and how promotions are
done, relationship to local bishops etc.

Bob

suburbicarian... Hmmmmm. Lots of great words like this in church documents.

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Altar girls
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:39:13 GMT

In article <199210072248.AA01386@caritas.cotdazr.org> "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
>} If your bishop chooses to ignore a Vatican document, which he is quite free
>} to do, then no crime or sin is committed, no law is being broken.
>
>	Au contraire.  The Bishop has been appointed by the pope and
>has sworn obedience to him, if I'm not mistaken.

   It is correct that a bishop has a vow of obedience to the Pope.
Our new archbishop (of Indianapolis), in telling about earlier being
appointed Bishop of Memphis, mentioned that Pope John Paul II told him
that he was transferring his vow of obedience from the Archabbot of
St. Meinrad to himself.

   I would say that disobeying a Vatican document that has been signed
by the Pope is disobedience to the Pope, even if done by a bishop.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: English translation
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:26:38 GMT
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ

In article <i3VPsB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>Before I got married, I was a lector for about 5 years.  In all that time, I
>*never* lifted the lectionary from its stand at the conclusion.  I always felt
>that holding up the book was a bit too theatrical, and would lead to the
>confusion you've described.  One priest in the parish agreed, the other would
>raise the book and hold it up very dramatically after the Gospel.  I don't know
>where he got it from, but this particular priest (a good family friend, btw)
>has always had a flair for the dramatic.  As a deacon, he would make an
>elaborate point of asking the celebrant for a blessing before proclaiming the
>Gospel. 

Which he was supposed to do anyway...there is a prayer that goes:

"Lord be on my heart and on my lips that I may worthily proclaim your 
holy Gospel, in the name of the Father..."

It is supposed to be recited quietly by a priest, but vocally by a
deacon (I guess to remove doubt that the deacon is commissioned by the
priest to proclaim the Holy Word).  However, theatrics is something
else...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:25:33 EDT
From:         "Patrick S. Golden" <pgolden@NHGS.VAK12ED.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones update
              at Oct 6, 92 1:00 pm

According to Marty Helgesen:
>
> Using altar girls corrupts the children of the parish, especially
> the altar girls themselves.  They are taught by example that if
> they don't like any of the Church's rules they are free to ignore
>  After all,the Church's legislative authority comes from God.
>
Seems strange to me that Jesus would allow a women to dry his
feet with her hair, but, accoding to the above, a woman cannot
dry a priest's hands with a cloth.



--
|-------------------------------|
|++Patrick Golden++             |
|pgolden@nhgs.vak12ed.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, 7 Oct 1992 15:56:56 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: sinead o'connor

Excerpts from catholic: 7-Oct-92 Re: sinead o'connor Edward J.
Branley@MINTIR (1078)

> > >Why do you assume those in the audience are "godless?"
> >
> >  I don't think he was.  He was simply stating how non-Catholics and
> >  non-Christians seem to respect the Pope.

> Non-Catholics and non-Christians are hardly 'godless,' unless they are
> atheists.

If you don't believe in God, you are godless.  This includes apathetic
agnostics who haven't explicitly rejected God and decided to be atheists
-- people who don't know God, don't know if he exists or not, and don't
care.  Often these people are antagonistic towards religion. I am not
including people who have some faith but just aren't sure of God's
existence, but who try to follow God anyway.  That's different.

There are very few real atheists, but a whole slew of people who are
anti-religion and who don't believe in God.  An atheist is someone who
explicitly denies God.  An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in
God, but doesn't deny God, either.

Eric
From: MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Must we talk about women priests?
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:39:51 GMT
 <1992Oct14.190913.25492@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Oct14.190913.25492@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer) says:
>
**Stuff deleted
>
>All I want to know is: CAN SINEAD O'CONNOR BE ORDAINED?
>(it's a joke :))

To give a serious answer, no, she cannot.  Neither can Mother Theresa
and she knows it because she is an orthodox Catholic.

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm   mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Omnipresent? (was Re: pre Vat II?)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:02:32 GMT

In article <9210051546.AA16803@intercon.com> Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM
> writes:
>>>
>There are two concepts here.  Pantheism is the belief that "everything is
>God."  Panentheism is the belief that God is present everywhere.  They are
>very different, despite the similarity of the terms.  Using Aristotleian
>terms, the first is concerned with *substance*, while the second is concerned
>with *location*.  That is to say, pantheism is the worship of all of Creation
>itself, while panentheism is the perception and acknowledgement of the
>presence of God in all of Creation.  Pantheism is not consonant with
>Christian theology (or Judaic theology, for that matter), but the second is.
>The prayers of St. Francis, for example, are very panentheistic, as are the
>sermons of Meister Eckhardt, and many other of the works of Christian mystics
>throughout the centuries.
>
> The word we're loking for here, I humbly sugest, is UBIQUITY--God's
"everywhereness"  (from the Latin "ubique" = everywhere). I suggest we stay 
away from panentheism which suggests that creation is another mode of the 
appearance of God.    St. Francis always addressed trees, water, air, the moon, 
etc., precisely as creatures. They were made from God from nothing and are not 
God. God is the wholly other. St. Francis' famous poem about this is called 
"Canticle of the Creatures', wherein he exhorts various created things to 
praise the Lord--not each other.
Peace,
>
>>--
>Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor.
>Exsultemus et in ipso jucundemur. Timeamus et amemus Deum vivum. Et ex corde
>diligamus nos sincero.  Amen.

 Thanks for the Latin! Let's have more Latin on the newsgroup, shall we? BTW, 
is anyone interested in starting a LATIN newsgroup? Send me an E-Mail at
BUFFERJ@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    VALE!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:32:14 -0500
From:         Amanda Walker <amanda@INTERCON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anglican Church Question...

> Ed, I am having difficulty now remembering what our Episcopal Shield
> looks like in the upper left quarter.

The arms of the Episcopal Church have 9 white crosses in saltire (in an "X"
shape) on a blue field in the upper left corner.

This derives from the heraldic usage of the Church of England, in which an
church flies a banner consisting of the red cross of St. George (the patron
saint of England) on a white field, with the arms of the See in which it is
situated in the first quarter (upper left).  Most churches in England fly
either the undifferentiated cross of St. George, or the ecclesiastical
emblems of the saint to whom it is dedicated.  This latter practice has also
been picked up by some Episcopal churches in this country, although since
armoury is not used as much here as in England, most non-cathedral churches
use the arms of the national church as a convenient "logo."  However, most
Episcopal cathedrals use proper ecclesiastical arms; for example, Washington
National Cathedral, whose name is actually "The Cathedral Church of St. Peter
and St. Paul," has a device containing the keys of St. Peter and the sword of
St. Paul.

Since the ESA views itself as Anglican but not under the jurisdiction of the
Episcopal Church, it uses the Anglican cross of St. George, but with its own
device in the first quarter.

Personally, I find this usage a bit presumptuous, since the ESA is *not* in
fact a valid alternative ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the Anglican
Communion.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: English translation
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:59:11 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:

>
> Which he was supposed to do anyway...there is a prayer that goes:
>
> "Lord be on my heart and on my lips that I may worthily proclaim your
> holy Gospel, in the name of the Father..."
>
> It is supposed to be recited quietly by a priest, but vocally by a
> deacon (I guess to remove doubt that the deacon is commissioned by the
> priest to proclaim the Holy Word).  However, theatrics is something
> else...

Didn't realize that deacons were supposed to say it aloud.  Makes sense.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:00:08 EDT
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      Originality of scriptural texts

john ocallaghan (jocallag@BACH.HELIOS.ND.EDU) writes:

>We do not possess any original texts, just older copies of copies.

One of my points exactly.  How can we ever be guaranteed that even the oldest
texts we possess is what God actually passed to the inspired writer of those
texts?  The answer is: we cannot.  We can only approach what we think God said
and the rest we must discern through His Spirit in our lives now in this time
and in this place.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 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: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Sinnead
Keywords: Sinnead Pope
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:51:15 GMT

I suggest that Sinnead take life less seriously and put
The Vatican Rag on her next album.

:)

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Wine
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:04:22 GMT

In article <9210071609.AA14463@nhgs> "Patrick S. Golden" <pgolden@NHGS.VAK12ED.EDU> writes:
>I was interested in Eric's recent post about the inability to
>use grape juice in the consecration.  I never thought about
>that before.  A follow-up post (forgot who, sorry) mentioned
>parish discussions about recovering alcoholic being left out of
>communion under both species by this restriction.

   There may be some confusion about Communion under both species.
One need not receive both the Body and Blood to receive fully.  Even
if one has received the Blood but not the Body, one has still fully
received Communion.  The same goes for receiving the Body but not the
Blood.

   So those who are not able to drink wine need not do so fully to
participate in the Eucharist.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu