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:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:18:49 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Book recommendation re: permanent diaconate

        A while back we were discussing the permanent diaconate.  I picked
up a very good book the other day on the subject:

        _The_Deacon_In_The_Church, Lynn C. Sherman.  Alba House, Ney York,
        1991.  ISBN 0-8189-0607-3.  $7.95 (softbound)

        The author is a permanent deacon in the Archdiocese of New Orleans
and was ordained in 1989.  He is married with two children.  The book
discusses the permanent diaconate -- what it is, and what it isn't.  It
also talks about the discernment process and the formation of deacons.
All in all, I thought it was an excellent book for anyone 1) trying to
discern if they have a vocation in the diaconate, 2) who works with
deacons, or 3) just wants to know what deacons are and what they do.
There's also a small amount of background as to the historical nature of
the deaconate; there's also a good exposition of the relevant Canons.

        Highly recommended.

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.
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Communication Problems, Gregory XVI and (oh, no, not again) Railways
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:13:13 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <1993Jan11.185357.12439@news.nd.edu> jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
: David Lodge: "How Far Can You Go?", Penguin Books, 1980. pp114-5.

>>>The title of this book says it all.  Reminds me of my childish questions to
>>>my father, "Dad how much sin can I do and still get into heaven?"

: Yes, you're right, it's always best to examine the contents of a book just
: by reading the title. What do you do with all the spare time?

>I'm not sure how you drew the conclusion that I was examining the contents
>of the book you mention.  On the face of it my statement indicates a
>reminiscence of mine, upon reading the title.  Could you detail how you
>drew the conclusion I was examining the contents of the book?

(i) I read your post;
(ii) I cleverly spotted the words "The title says it all";
(iii) I cleverly inferred that you felt that, in some sense, the title said
it all, or, to paraphrase, encapsulated the contents of the book;
(iv) uh...
(v) that's it.

>I read, I clean, etc..  What do you do?

Waste my time drivelling (and being drivelled at) in b.l.c.

Martin.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8: 1-11)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:22:59 GMT

"What, me worry?" <ACSWILEY@EKU.BITNET> writes:

>Ok my second post folks so here I go, please be gentle :)

>   The scriptures are very sound when it comes to sexual immortality.
>Paul speaks about a man should take a wife and visa versa. He does not
>say for a man to take another man. Or a woman to take another woman.
>As far as homosexuals go, I love them, I have a good friend who is gay
>and he is a really cool person. But I do hate the sin. I pray for him
>that God will intersede and somehow change him. 

Why must we always define homosexuality as behavior rather than as part of
a person's being?  How do you know that God did not create him gay and if
so, is that not a gift from God?  

The Bible is also very
>clear about heterosexual immortality, Jesus spoke about this more than he
>did about homosexauls.

Jesus never spoke about homosexuals.  Point out a scripture where Jesus
even brings the subject up.  Good luck.

>BTW, the campus Gay and Lesbian support group
>meets at the Newman center here on campus. Anywho, I would not like
>the idea of a Priest being gay,

Plenty of them are, I'm sure.  As are many nuns.  (Read the book _Lesbian
Nuns_.)  Why is this a problem for you?  If a priest feels lust toward a 
woman, well, this is just natural, is it not?  Is it not important how he
deals with that lust, since he has taken a vow of celibacy.  Does this not
also apply to the gay priest.  If he remains faithful to his vows of 
chastity, then what's your problem with it?

>or a Priest being married.

So, what's your opinion of married Anglican priests who become Roman
Catholic priests?  This happens.  For real.  If you had such a priest as
your pastor, would you stop going to that parish?

>Or a woman
>being a Priest.

In the interest of avoiding yet another one of those arguments about why
a woman's period makes her unclean, I'll leave this one alone.  

>Most of the Priests I have talked to (central kentucky
>area) subscribe to the above beliefs.

Do you know what is in their hearts?  How do you know a priest isn't gay?
Would you reject a married priest?  (Since as I have pointed out, they do
exist in the Catholic Church.)  

>Father Greg here at EKU jokes
>thank God for celebacy) because when you take a look at his appointment
>book its filled from 8am till 11pm, and he's not an old fuddy duddy
>by any means.

As I've pointed out, if a priest is celibate, why worry about his sexual
orientation?  Is not celibacy the noble ideal, especially considering Paul's
views on the subject?  (Ie. You should only get married if you can't control
your animal urges...)

Sharon

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:37:51 CST
From:         CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject: Re: consecration of Russia
              5 Jan 1993 14:13:40 EST from <cgoodson@SUN.CC.WESTGA.EDU>

On Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:13:40 EST Carol Goodson said:
>> too greatly offended". There was to be a collegial consecration of
>> Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. If this was not done, Russia would
>> spread the errors of communism throughout the world and entire nations
>> would be annihilated. This consecration has not yet been done, although
>> some, including a Fr. Robert J. Fox in "Soul" magazine, have tried to
>> say that it has been done.
>
>Pope John Paul II *has* consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and I read
> ((recently) that Sister Lucia herself has said that his actions have fully met
Pope John Paul II has made a consecration, but it has not been done as
requested by Our Lady at Fatima.
There is an ongoing effort to get the consecration done as requested,
namely the Pope and all the bishops of the world consecrating Russia,
not the entire world, but this has NOT been done yet.

In Jesus and Mary,
Elizabeth
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: EWTN
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 09:15:34 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:

> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> > Was wondering if anyone had any opinions regarding EWTN and its
> > programming. We're just starting to get EWTN for more than prime time.
> > What I've seen of it, I'm not overly impressed.  The daily Mass from
> > Mother Angelica's monastery in Alabama is ok, but some of the lecture
> > shows are downright boring.  So, I'm hoping that some of you are
> > familiar with some of the priests they have doing these shows, that way
> > I can find out the easy way if any of these guys are worth watching.
>
> Well, I've found that their material varies a lot.  I loved being able to see
> the Christmas services from the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception,
> for example.  I also often appreciate the Masses and other services (such as
> Solemn Benediction) that they carry.  I even, from time to time, will tune in
> for a rendition of the Rosary, although I must admit that my saccharine
> filter can get saturated by the visuals :).

I saw the Solemn Benediction one evening, and that was quite enjoyable.  Also
caught a Mass from the National Shrine, wasn't Christmas, but an installation
or some such.  Was a good service, and the production and camera work were very
good.

>
> However, most of the lecture shows tend to be extremely dry and presented at
> an very elementary level.  I feel like I'm watching visual aids from a
> "Welcome to Roman Catholicism 101" class.  Now, this may in fact be what
> they're for :), but I don't find them particularly engaging, if only because
> they cover such familiar ground.

Amanda, 'extremely dry' is being very generous :-).

>
> But hey, it's a lot better than any other religious programming on cable.
> The only things that come even close are occasional programs on VISN or The
> Learning Channel (which recently did a marvelous program on recent
> archaeological developments in Jerusalem and Capernaum, for example).

We get VISN, but it's dovetailed on the same channel with another network
called ACTS.  I don't know much about ACTS, but Falwell is on there right now,
so that's all I need to know.  The Learning Channel has some really great
stuff, quite true.  Problem is that I'm suffering from an info glut.




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: EWTN
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 18:06:30 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU> writes:

> R.Chonak writes and Edward Bramley responds:
>
> >> On the other hand, some of EWTN's programs are promoting the dubious
> apparitions
> >> at Medjugorje in Herzegovina, which will prove to be embarrassing for the
> >> network if the Church ever gets around to decisively condemning the
> apparitions
> >> as false.  (Roma eterna, civitas Vaticana sempiterna.)  ;-)
>
>
> >I've got problems with the apparitions themselves, also.
> >I get the impression that they just wish that Medjugorje would just 'go away
> >but the civil war keeps things in the news so much.  Ah, but another time fo
> >Medjugorje.
>
> What are the objections to Medjugorje?  So far, in all I read, serious
> students of the alleged apparitions always demur to the ultimate authority
> of the Church.  The catch-22 seems to be that the Church never rules on
> such phenomena until the sequence of apparitions is all over and have
> withstood the test of time, or whenever something occurs that definitvely
> shows the phenomena are not of divine origin.  The Virgin's "messages" all

Well, I wouldn't say that I object to the Medjugorje apparitions, I just have
problems believing in their legitimacy.  The main reason I agree with the
characterization 'dubious' is that they don't resemble the circumstances of any
of the other Marian apparitions recognized by the Church.  At Fatima and
Lourdes, for example, Mary appeared for a short period of time and left a
tangible sign of her presence at the conclusion of the apparitions.  Medjugorje
has been going on for over 10 years.  I don't find belief in the apparations
objectionable, it's just that faith has not moved me to be a believer.  Combine
that with the Church's refusal as of yet to sign off on the apparitions, I'm
skeptical.




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Confiteor
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:48:48 GMT


    The church I attend here no longer says the Confiteor.  Is this the
general practice these days?  Why has it been dropped?  (I don't know
how long it's been this way, but it finally dawned on me one day that
we weren't saying it.)
 
    Thanks.


John Rickert						
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 37 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:26:00 PST
From:         Jim McIntosh <Jim@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Lies about the Consecration

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:55:42 CST Elizabeth Stevens said:
>If it weren't so terribly important, it would be simply fascinating to study
>the dilemma of the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
>...
>One thing is certain, if we truly are in the end times, and triumph
>of good over evil is dependent upon a collegial consecration of
>Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it is not too difficult to
>imagine that Satan would cause total confusion over this act.
>I pray that we may find the truth. If we are led to believe it
>has been done satisfactorily when it has not, God help us all...

Now where did this come from? "Triumph of good over evil is dependent upon a
collegial consecration of Russia"? As much as I look through my scriptures I
can find no reference to Russia.  If the triumph of good over evil (by which
I presume you mean Satan somehow overpowers God) is (1) even possible and (2)
would really happen if some word was misspoken, don't you think Jesus would
have mentioned it? Especially if it was so "terribly important"?

It is hard to believe that God would send God's only begotton Son to us, and
and then let that Son then somehow forget to tell us about the fact that
Satan will defeat God unless some men fail to say some words in two thousand
years.  It is even harder to believe that this God will surrender all control
to Satan unless some children who say they are hearing voices get the message
to those men in time.  I mean it's more than hard to believe. It goes against
everything I know and understand about God.

My primary problem with it is that it implys that something, somewhere (call
it Satan or whatever) is greater than God. Secondly, it implys we can control
God's actions and choices. Thirdly, it reduces religion (our establishing and
working at building a relationship with God, and then discerning God's plan
for our lives and working to follow that plan) to the realm of magic.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: submission to teaching, conscience, ... sigh.
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:02:51 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <C0JtqC.BrJ@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>
>      We seem to have gotten stuck in a thicket. Partly
>my fault. I would like to go back to the original
>issues, which are of great importance to many people,
>and try to restate my position.

[He does.] 

Thank you, Steve. An excellent post.

> I will quote Newman
>     "And, further, obedience to the Pope is what is called
>     'in possession;' that is, the onus probandi of establishing
>     a case against him lies, as in all cases of exception,
>     on the side of the conscience. Unless a man be able to
>     say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must
>     not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is
>     bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in 
>     disobeying it."

Newman appears to be addressing a different type of situation from that of
_Humanae Vitae_, namely one in which a pope might be enjoining the faithful
to commit some sinful act or sinful act of omission; he is not speaking of
another potential category of dissent from the Magisterium, namely that in
which the pope were to condemn an act as sinful which one's conscience held
not to be sinful. We've been here before: Steve advocates voluntary
abstention in humility. I have a great deal of respect for this point of
view and the associated practice, but I do not find it compelling. It seems
to me (and is plainly the view Butler takes) that one may in good conscience
not hold oneself bound by the papal teaching. In any event, I submit that
Newman's view (which I would not disagree with) is not strictly germane to
the circumstances of _Humane Vitae_.

>       I believe my analysis and the principle I have employed
>     are the only ones consistent with the teaching of Lumen
>     Lumen Gentium on the Magisterium, the teaching of 
>     Gaudium et Spes on conscience, and the teaching of 
>     Newman on both.

The only ones? This is plainly at odds with Butler and the sources he
cites.
 
>                           I will be willing to discuss
>                           this or related questions
>                           with any serious person. Steve Barr.

I'm sorry, I can't help you there.

Martin Barry.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:58:33 GMT

     Dear len Horn, You are basically right about Original
Sin. But let me nitpick. Our first parents were created in
a state in which in addition to there natural gifts
(those that were inherent in their nature as human) certain
preternatural gifts, such as the freedom from the necessity
of physical death. 
    With the Fall Man lost two kinds of things: certain
preternatural gifts, and certain natural gifts. Thus we not
only lost the gifts that went beyond our nature but our nature
was corrupted as well.
    A baby is born without any "actual sin". Nevertheless,
a baby has Original Sin which means that he(she) is in
a state of alienation from God and without sanctifying
grace. Moreover, every human being inherits a strong
tendency or tropism toward sin. This is called 'concupiscentia'
by the theologians, or 'concupiscence'. Even if our
first parents had not enjoyed any preternatural gifts, they 
need not have suffered from concupiscence. Concupiscence
(in the sense of a strong tendency to sin) is not a part of
our nature as human. Rather, it is a consequence of the Fall.
It is a corruption of our nature. Both our will and our
reason has been weakened.
    So: human nature is good. But our natures have been corrupted.
Our "fallen natures" include features which were not part of
our original natures but came about as a consequence of the Fall.
   
    Therefore, a baby is good in the following senses:
he (she) has a human nature which is good, and is free
of actual sin. However, that same baby is in a state of
alienation from God and lacks sanctifying grace, and has
inherited certain flaws or corruptions to his nature, most
notably a tendency to sin and error. 
    This is what I understand the Church to teach. Steve Barr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:35:00 EST
From:         "Alfred S. Chavez" <achavez@UMSA.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Help with Building Plans

Chas. Smith writes:

>Our Parish is beginning the process of planning to expand our physical
>plant.

1. I was on our parish council when plans for an addition began.  It was
surprising to find out that our archdiocese pretty much controlled what
architects and builderts we could use.  Actually, it made those decisions
much simpler in that there  already existed a short list of pre-screened
professionals to work with.  You may want to become fully conversant in your
own diocese's policies before you go any further.

2. We fretted over finances until the pastor decided to allow a sacrificial
giving program (tithing) to be instituted.  There has been some discussion on
giving over the network lately; it certainly worked marvelously at our parish.
The diocesan rule was that 50% of the cost of construction had to be in the
bank before construction could begin; that part was about taken care of when
the program began about two years ago.  The addition was completed by last
Easter and was fully paid for. (Cost of the addition was about $800,000.)

Best of luck!

His Peace,
Fred Chavez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: Text
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:38:35 GMT
From:         mmiller1@ATTMAIL.COM
Subject:      Subscribe

Please subscribe me to your list.
Mike Miller
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:32:14 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Jan 13

                    Wednesday, January 13, 1993
                             St. Hilary

Hebrews 2:14-18               Psalm 105         Mark 1:29-39

                            DEATH_DEFYING

"Jesus likewise had a full share in ours, that by His death He might rob the
 devil, the prince of death, of his power." --Hebrews 2:14

The devil is "the prince of death", but Jesus is the King of kings.  The devil
has made many people life-long slaves "through fear of death" (Heb 2:15), but
Jesus holds "the keys of death" (Rev 1:18).  Jesus beat death at its own game
by dying on the cross.  It looked as if the prince of death had defeated the
King of life, but on the third day Jesus rose from the dead.

Now we who follow Jesus can taunt death: "O death, where is your sting?"
(I Cor 15:55)  "Death is swallowed up in victory" (I Cor 15:54).  Death is
now our friend and sister, as St. Francis of Assisi claimed.  "Death has no
more power" over us (Rm 6:9).  The Lord has turned death to the good (see
Rm 8:28) by His sovereign, risen power.  Death no longer ends life but begins
perfect, everlasting life.  It does not so much separate us from our earthly
family as reunite us with our heavenly family.  In death we do not enter
darkness but eternal light where we will see Jesus face to face (I Cor 13:12).

Jesus, "the Resurrection and the Life" (Jn 11:25), we adore You.


Prayer:  Jesus, may I choose You and thereby choose life (see Dt 30:19).

Promise: Jesus "went into their synagogues preaching the good news and
         expelling demons throughout the whole of Galilee."  Mk 1:39

Praise:  Saint Hilary taught about and prayed for the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
 Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward J. Gratsch
 Imprimatur:  +Most Rev. James H. Garland, V.G.
               Archdiocese of Cincinnati, October 15, 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:42:29 CST
From:         CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: EWTN
              4 Jan 1993 04:54:38 PST from <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM>

On Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:54:38 PST John R. Covert 04-Jan-1993 0752 said:
>>The only things that come even close are occasional programs on VISN or The
>>Learning Channel (which recently did a marvelous program on recent
>>archaeological developments in Jerusalem and Capernaum, for example).
>
>If the Jerusalem show you're talking about on The Learning Channel is
>what was on a few days ago (I think it might have even been Christmas
>Day), it was manifestly anti-religious, ridiculing the concept of
>divine inspiration of the Bible.
>
>/john

I'd like to reinforce John's comments on TLC. When first watching this
channel it was one of my favorites. Over time, however, it has become
very clear that whenever they deal with Christianity, it is not
favorable towards Christianity. In particular the Roman Catholic
Church. Be especially wary of their program "Beliefs".

In Christ,
Elizabeth