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:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:37:54 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Nov 4, 11:47am, WERLING wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality
} On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:
}
} > 	What other version of Hell is there?
}
} I'm talking the way I thought as a child.  And I'm talking basic sense
} here.  God is not compassionate if he allows souls to be tormented for
} eternity.

	God respects our free will.  He will not force us to be in
heaven if we'd rather be in hell.  If it helps any, your question
is one of the most basic ones of Christianity.  The answer (or *an*
answer) is that by our lives, our decisions, we choose heaven or hell.
If we choose mortal sin and are unrepentant, we go to hell.  Why?
Because with out the sanctifying grace we receive through confession
or an Act of Contrition, our souls are not able to be in heaven
("Nothing unclean can enter heaven").  The torment of hell, in my
view, is not a literal fire and brimstone, but something far worse --
to see God as he is and know you have separated yourself from Him
forever.
} Yes, I'm pretty well read on the gospels.  I know what the bible says.
} But we have no proof that the bible is the "word of god."
	What sort of proof would be acceptable to you?
}-- End of excerpt from WERLING

Peace be with you.

--
* 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 debugging compilers.
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 11:50:58 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Mon, 2 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:

> 	The correct term is 'homosexual'.  The Politically Correct term
> is the euphemism 'gay'.

Please do not get insulting.  Homosexual is the scientific word that
refers specifically to sexual behavior.  Gay is the word that refers to
something more complex, something rooted in what it means to be homosexual
in an anti-homosexual society.

> 	I agree that most of 'you' did not choose to be the way you are.
> No one is telling you to 'not be the way you are' (at least, I'm not).
> We (or I) *am* telling you to refrain from sex outside of marriage
> (Church-sanctioned marriage).  That is what I as a single male am called
> to, and it's what you are called to as well.

It is extremely easy for you to say this, however, if your attractions are
towards a member of the opposite sex.  Luckily, some churches are giving
sanctioned gay marriages, yes?

Why does God care with whom you have sex, so long as it's consensual?

> 	Hm.  We just had a discussion of this in relation to contraception.
> Sex is not *just* for procreation, but for procreation (generative function)
> and unity of the married couple (unitive function).

Who says this?  God?  How do you know the bible is the word of your god?

> 	All sins are equal?  I don't think so.  Some sins are mortal,
> some are not. Isn't that in the letter to James (among other places)?
> Rape, murder, and fornication *are* mortal sins.  That doesn't mean they
> are 'the same', but that their effects on the soul are the same.

This is what I find to be absurd.  If you're going to have punishment at
all, the punishment should reflect the "crime."

> 	'being who you are' is not the same as 'doing whatever you want
> to do'.

Homosexuality hurts no one.  Here we are again.  I am eager to see how you
respond to that previous post.

> 	Incidentally, suicides (barring last minute repentance) don't
> enter Heaveen -- it's the ultimate rejection of God.

This bothers me.  One of God's (if there is a god) creatures enters into
an ultimate despair and can't take life anymore, so s/he gets sent to hell?
I believe I recently wrote on the mythical compassion of you god?

> } My basic point is that if love--any love--is a sin to a god, then this is
> } not a god I'm interested in "worshipping."
>
> 	This is a point we have discussed at great length.  Sex does not
> equal love.  Love is not a sin.  Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Why?


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: Nature of List
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:26:22 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92110708454482@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>Let's take structure. Why is it the church a hierarchy? It is a hierarchy
>because it has was born and has existed during time of monarchies and
>empires. Those are power structures which are now rejected. I think
>people look at the "Rome has spoken, now obey" attitude and laugh. I
>would argue that the mindless clinging to this outdated form of
>government is one of the causes of those empty pews.

I guess then that you reject Vatican II, specifically Lumen Gentium?

Peace,'
John


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:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:07:40 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Nov 5,  5:06pm, "(Martin Barry)" wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexuality

} In article <199211041645.AA15787@caritas.cotdazr.org> zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG
} ((Gordon C. Zaft)) writes:
} >
} >	Well, homosexual acts hurt the person involved by putting him
} >in the state of mortal sin, thereby alienating him from God and making
} >his soul spiritually dead.  As for society, society is hurt by mortal
} >sins of this kind because it encourages and leads others into mortal
} >sin (and potentially their condemnation).
} >--
} >* Gordon Zaft
}
} No, that won't do. It's an entirely circular argument: "why are homosexual
} acts sinful? Because they hurt the person. How do they hurt the person? By
} leading them into sin."
}
} Can you come up with a better case as to how exactly homosexual acts harm
} their protagonists? Note that this is a different question from "Does the
} bible proscribe homosexual acts?" and from "Has the Church constantly
} proscribed homosexual acts?"
}-- End of excerpt from "(Martin Barry)"

	I believe the question I was answering was not 'why are homosexual
acts sinful' but 'why are homosexual acts wrong' or 'how do homosexual
acts cause harm'.  I believe this was in response to Andy's assertion
that homosexual sex harms no one.

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.
The only difference between a rut and a grave is their dimensions.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: Legislating morality
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:08:18 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Nov4.002119.10842@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)  writes:

>   As a complete aside, the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois,
>Idaho, has recently released that 1 in 11 rams are homosexual.  What are
>the theological implications for this?  Aren't sheep God's creatures, and
>moreover, not fallen?  Why should they also be imbued with this sin, as
>it were?
And tomcats eat kittens. Humans are so backward in these matters.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:47:24 PDT
From:         FRANK@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calif. Prop 161

> Does anyone know the outcome of California Proposition 161, the
> Euthanasia bill that would legalize euthanasia in California?


   Thank God it went down in defeat.  It was nip-and-tuck for awhile.
   for most of the evening there were 50% for, 50% against.  I
   believe the final outcome was 56% against, 44% for.

   Frank
From: mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 8
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:52:11 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


    		    Sunday, November 8, 1992
		      Thirty-second Sunday

II Maccabees 7:1-2, 9-14 		    	Psalm 17
II Thessalonians 2:16-3:5			Luke 20:27-38

      	      	    "BECAUSE HE LIVES . . ."

"God is not the God of the dead but of the living.  All are alive for him."
 --Luke 20:38

    Because of Jesus' resurrection and our coming resurrection, we see our
bodies much differently than non-Christians do.  We respect our bodies
because they will be glorified and in heaven forever.

    Because of the resurrection, we Christians highly value the vocation of
celibacy or virginity.  This is a prophetic witness to our life after the
resurrection. Then we will no longer marry, but be as the angels (Lk 20:34-36).

    Because of the resurrection, we are willing to sacrifice our bodies in the
years of evangelization and Christian service.  We are even willing to be
persecuted and to die for Jesus because we know we will rise form the dead
(II Mc 7:9).

    Because of the resurrection, we are filled with hope.  Death has lost
its sting (I Cor 15:55).  Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ
(Rom 8:38-39).  Our future is glorious.

    "Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, He Who in His
great mercy gave us new birth, a birth unto hope which draws its life from
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (I PT 1:3).


Prayer:  Jesus, may I truly celebrate Your resurrection every Sunday.

Promise: "May our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, may God the Father Who loved us
	  and in His mercy gave us eternal consolation and hope, console your
	  hearts and strengthen them for every good work and word."
	  II Thes 2:16-17

Praise:  Alleluia!  Jesus is risen!  Alleluia!

-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Sunday, 8 Nov 1992 01:10:22 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
 <1992Nov5.171845.1@cua.edu>


Alison,

You wrote, "On the contrary, the revolution of the sun around the
earth was considered equally fundamental to the Church in Galileo's
time. After all, the Bible does tell us that at one time, _the sun
stopped!_"

That statement is contrary to fact.  About a month ago I posted this
information:

In 1651, less than twenty years after Galileo's second condemnation,
a Jesuit theologian and astronomer who was opposed to Galileo wrote:
     "As there has been no definition on this matter by the Sovereign
Pontiff, nor by a Council directed and approved by him, it is in no
way of faith that the sun moves and the earth is motionless, at least
the decree does not make it so, but only at most the authority of
Holy Scripture--for those who are morally sure that God has revealed
it to be so.  Still, all Catholics are obliged by prudence and obedi-
ence . . . not to teach categorically the opposite of what the decree
lays down"  Riccioli in _Almagesthum Novum_ quoted by B. C. Butler in
_The Church and Infallibility_ (Sheed and Ward, 1954) p.83

More recently someone posted this statement by Saint Robert, Cardinal
Bellarmine, (whom he described as the head of the Roman Inquisition):

    "If there were a real proof that the sun is in the
    center of the universe, that the earth is in the third
    heaven, and that the sun does not go around the earth
    but the earth around the sun, then we should have
    to proceed with great circumspection in explaining
    passages of scripture which appear to teach the
    contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand
    them than declare an opinion to be false which is
    proved to be true. But as for myself, I shall not believe
    that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.
    ..... In case of doubt we should not abandon the
    interpretation of the sacred text as given by the holy
    fathers."

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm   mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:05:55 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Bellarmine on Galileo

Steve,
If the data doesn't fit the theory, then the theory must be modified to
account for the new data or the data must be reevaluated to see if the
proper controls were in place when the data was collected. In a lot of
cases, it is the theory that must be expanded on(Newton to Einstein comes
to mind). Be that as it may, in today's society, there is ample evidence
that women are fully capable of teaching and leading, I guess I'd have
to ask for this data of your's which links the decline of the protestant
Churches to their ordination of women, to be reevaluated:-) -J.J.
(you mean ther are no evangelical churches with women ministers?)
From: aitken@CS.CORNELL.EDU (William E. Aitken)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:03:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              06 Nov 92 18:34:59 -0500.
              <9211062353.AA17772@cloyd.cs.cornell.edu>

> Women are forbidden to be in the sanctuary during liturgy, period.  It's
> hard to act even as a modern altar server if you cannot be present in
> the sanctuary.

	Could you please give us some evidence of this.  Perhaps
citing current, definitive Church documents.  Pay special attention to
explaining how this doesn't contradict the Canon which provides for
qualified lay persons (of either sex) to assist infirm and blind
priests, the Liturgical Law which allows Conferences of Bishops to
specify where female readers are to read (and the decision of both the
American and the English Bishops (among others) that it be the same
place as where men do, even if in the sanctuary), and so on.

						--- Bill.
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 12:26:16 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

On Tue, 3 Nov 1992, (Steve Creps) wrote:

>    The orthodox Christian belief is that our bodies belong to God, Who
> created them in the first place.  Not only do they belong to God, but
> they are His temple.  Therefore, sexual conduct against God's will can
> be considered not only disobedience to God, but also a desecration of
> His temple.

How could this possibly desecrate this "temple"?  How does cause spiritual
harm?  Because God says so?  Why does he say so?

>    It is also not reasonable to argue that homosexuality is not
> against God's will, as Scripture contains condemnation of it in both
> the Old Testament and the New Testament, as has always Sacred
> Tradition.  Therefore, those who unfortunately have this orientation
> should try their best to remain chaste, and always remember that if
> they fail in this, God's forgiveness always awaits them, no matter how
> many times they must ask for it.

Which causes incredible inner shame and inner illegitimacy ("I'm doing
this even though it's a sin...miserable if you don't do it, miserable if
you do...Gee, thanks, God, really appreciate it...").

Happyfag!  Andrew Werling on Planet Yip  awerling@nmsu.edu  yip@acca.nmsu.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 12:32:47 -0700
From:         WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ACT-UP

On Tue, 3 Nov 1992, (Gordon C. Zaft) wrote:

> 	We can stop the epidemic without having a cure.  We have all the
> resources we need at our disposal NOW to stop the disease from spreading.

How about those who already have it?


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
From: MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: FAQ for Catholic Mailing List
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:30:37 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


Edward

The problem with an FAQ document for this list/newsgroup is that most
of the FAQ are doctrinal or moral ones on which the members cannot
come to an agreement.  Most FAQ documents deal with questions that
can be resolved. For example one for the rec.art.sf.* usenet
hierarchy answers, with references, the question of the nationality
of Johnny Rico in Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_.  (Apparently that
question has come up frequently, although it seemed obvious to me
that he is Filipino, which is what the FAQ said.)

One could come up with a Frequently Discussed Subjects document, and
provide some information on each, but people who disagreed with the
view expressed would object that it is really YOUR FDS document, not
the group's document.  In other words, discussing what should be said
in the document would just be another occasion of the FDS being
discussed, and could not be resolved any more for the document than
it can at any other time.

That being the case, what function would the FAQ/FDS document serve?

Marty Helgesen
mnhcc@cunyvm  mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
From: jslindst@waltari.helsinki.fi (Jouko Lindstedt)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: post-election thoughts
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:45:27 GMT
Organization: Department of General Linguistics, Univ. of Helsinki. Finland

To me it seems a bit odd that so many American Catholics seem to have
voted for Bush only because of Clinton's pro-abortion views. In several
other issues, such as social welfare, Clinton's opinions seem to be more
in accordance with Christian charity than Bush's. 

Here in Finland, if I wanted to vote for a parliamentary candidate
opposing abortion, I ought to vote for a person that I know to be
incompetent, or at least to have different opinions than I in
practically every issue except for abortion. As has been noted in this
newsgroup, many anti-abortion politicians in the U.S. may find death
penalty, for instance, perfectly acceptable; if you are against death
penalty (and I must say that from my European perspective it is
difficult to understand you still have death penalty there in the
U.S.!), how do you choose?

All those abortions _are_ a terrible thing. But if you only choose
your candidate on this criterion, you neglect your duty of exercising
your judgment on other social issues! Even the Devil might be against
abortion to reach his goals (this is only to give an extreme example,
not to offend those who voted for Bush because of personal conviction).

[POST SCRIPTUM: Since I have now meddled with U.S. affairs, may I say
something about the American character of this newsgroup? Since the
vast majority of regular readers seem to be American, it is of course
O.K. that you discuss American matters from American perspective --
what else could you do? But please remember that different
abbreviations or slang expression may be difficult to understand (and
I think this applies even to British readers, who share your mother
tongue!).  And if you don't know the spelling of a word, please look
it up in a dictionary, so that we need not guess what you might mean.
I must use dictionary all the time when writing to newsgroups, I
cannot understand why native speakers couldn't use it on the very rare
occasions they need to.  Not to speak about the fact that I usually do
know the spelling of a word you have marked as "(sp?)"...  But thank
you for everything you have written and will write, I much enjoy
reading this newsgroup which is really for me a gateway out of
Catholic diaspora.]

--

                                     Jouko Lindstedt
                                     
Institutum Slavicum, Universitas Helsingiensis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Slavonic Languages, University of Helsinki
<jslindst@waltari.Helsinki.Fi> or <Jouko.Lindstedt@Helsinki.Fi>
letters: Hallituskatu 11, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
(From Jan 1, 1993: P.O.Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland)
fax: +358-0-1912974
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:31:17 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

Excerpts from catholic: 5-Nov-92 Re: Homosexuality Martin
Barry@UTS.MCC.AC. (886)

> In article <199211041645.AA15787@caritas.cotdazr.org> zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG
> ((Gordon C. Zaft)) writes:
> >
> >	Well, homosexual acts hurt the person involved by putting him
> >in the state of mortal sin, thereby alienating him from God and making
> >his soul spiritually dead.  As for society, society is hurt by mortal
> >sins of this kind because it encourages and leads others into mortal
> >sin (and potentially their condemnation).
> >--
> >* Gordon Zaft

> No, that won't do. It's an entirely circular argument: "why are
> homosexual acts sinful? Because they hurt the person. How do they hurt
> the person? By leading them into sin."

What Gorden I think neglected to mention is that homosexuality leads one
into _further_ sin.  Take Jeffrey Dahmer.  A man who struggled with
homosexual inclinations, though he probably felt guilt for them.
Nevertheless he indulged in them.  It is very possible that it was by
this indulgence that he because more and more depraved, so that he
desired to kill and eat his victims.  One seemingly minor sin led him
into other sins, which eventually caused his downfall.

I am not saying that homosexuality will necessarily lead you into
cannibalism or the depravity of Jeffrey Dahmer.  But I know homosexuals
who saw very clearly that by indulging in their inclinations, it led
them to more terrible and frightening inclinations that they weren't
about to accept as good.  Retreating from indulging in homosexual
inclinations pulled them away from the abyss of more terrible sins.  If
you think my comparison with Jeffrey Dahmer is ridiculous, believe me,
there are homosexuals which are frightened by Jeffrey Dahmer's case
because it mirrors exactly what seems to be going on in their own soul.

> Can you come up with a better case as to how exactly homosexual acts
> harm their protagonists? Note that this is a different question from
> "Does the bible proscribe homosexual acts?" and from "Has the Church
> constantly proscribed homosexual acts?"

> Martin Barry.

Case studies show the psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage
suffered by homosexuals who indulge their inclinations.  It leads to
despair  and a desire that can never be satisfied.  Homosexuals are
almost never happy, and I don't believe these negative things are
entirely due to societal influences.  The answer is not "accepting your
lifestyle."  Homosexuals tend always to be deeply wounded individuals
with tormented souls; the more they indulge, the worse it becomes.

I believe that homosexuals can only find peace by rejecting the
homosexual lifestyle (i.e. homosexual sex) and living either celibately
or in a marital relationship with a member of the opposite sex, if that
is possible.  (For some, it is; others are revolted by the thought.)

Eric