HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: RE: Inter Insigniores
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:22:22 GMT

In article <BxLyp1.95D@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   Thank you for your thoughtful insights.

Ouch.  To be fair, this document is in response to a number of arguments in
favor of women ordination.  It would be nice to see a counterpoint
document.  I saved this one and will study it, but my first reading left
me thinking it was a bunch of rationalizations, something I've been
sensitized to by my conservative RC education as a warning sign.  I don't
think the logic was convincing.  if A is like B and B is like C then A must
be equal C stuff.  A could also be like D, E, and F, etc.  However, that
because the logic isn't ironclad doesn't mean that the conclusions are
necessarily false, but it does mean further study is necessary.

Bob


PS I like what the C of E Bishop had to say in his arguments defending the
approved measure - something to the effect that Tradition was not being
abandoned, it was being made more inclusive.  The tradition of male priesthood
will continue, it just isn't exclusive.

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:56:53 GMT

In article <921112103039.28e3f651@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
writes:
>In the newspaper article I read this morning on this topic, it stated
>that the "Vatican" saw this as a step backward in the process of
>unification of the churches. It then stated that the acceptance of
>the ordination of women among Roman Catholics was only 24% in 1974,
>while today the acceptance was 64%. We all know how good exit polls are:-),
>so is this an indication the the "Vatican" is out of the loop when it
>comes to spiritual inspiration today:-)? (not a serious question, John:-)
>
>Our parish went through the Renew process several years ago, and obviously
>I was a bit hesitant to express my views on topics like the ordination of
>women (OK, so I wasn't that hesitant:-), but this 64% figure I would say is
>conservative in our parish. The message I have perceived from our parish
>leadership is that our faith must grow beyond the rules/regulation stage
>into something like a "one-on-one" with Christ. 
I am aggrieved to hear that your "parish leadership" has abandoned the 
beautiful truth of the Church as a body of believers, united in "One Lord, one 
Faith, One Baptism", in favor of a subjective, individualistic "one-one-one" 
--what a ghastly phrase--with Christ.
Some of the rules which
>have prevented some to be more like Christ have already fallen by the 
wayside,
What prevents us from becoming more like Christ? Sin. Not rules
established by competent authority.

>we now have greater community involvement in the Mass, which then follows
>out into the community we live in (Even our Church parking lot is a friendly
>place:-).
When seeking friendliness, I head for Shriners meetings. When seeking truth and
holiness, I go to Mass.

 So I guess this ordination rule (and all the
cicumstantial evidence
>which supports it) is beginning to be viewed as more of an obstacle than a
>enhancement to our faith. (well, at least for me anyway) The irony of this
>feeling I have occured this Sunday at a parish meeting on RCIA. The head
>of our RCIA program, who went through it himself, singled me out of the
>crowd as the person who convinced him to join the program, and my wife
>popped out with, "and now he's thinking of leaving:-)", argh!!!, so John
>and Steve don't worry, I'm not leaving, if only to prove my wife wrong:-)
ARe you teaching the part about ecclesiology?>
>-J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:06:23 GMT

In article <921109151440.3f209a78@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>Steve Barr,
>A very fine post on physics and the Galileo incident. I even agree with
>most of it:-), but being a mushy liberal, why can't I apply this "so what?"
>question to the reasons given for proscribing the ordination of woman?
>The Church obviously learned a lesson, and an obvious example is that of
>the theory of evolution which followed Galileo time, but if the Church
>based its position of women priests on the role women were allowed to
>have at the time of Christ(or even up to 100 years ago), couldn't this
>be a comparable instance which has yet to be corrected? -J.J.

J.J.,
Without seeking to give a definitive answer to your question, which I am
not authorized to do, perhaps the difference of subject matter can be
displayed by asking two questions.  Not htat this settles the issue, I'm
just trying to frame it:
1) What essential relationship do scientific theories of the physical
world have to salvation history?
2) What essential relationship does the sacramental priesthood have salvation
history?

It is not obvious to me that everyone who accepts the authority of the Church
in matters of faith and morals, could answer these questions.  But then I don't
think they need to.  But it also seems to me that those who wish to use examplesfrom the first for adjudicating isses of the second, have to answer these questions in a way that makes the implicit grounds of the comparison clear, and also
in a way that corresponds to the Church's own self understanding of its role
and authority to proclaim the Good News, and its own answers to these questions.
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 00:04:22 -0700
From:         "(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Question

On Nov 4,  8:24pm, WERLING wrote:
} Subject: Question
} I know I have tons to respond to, but something was said to me that I have
} to followup on.
}
} Got a personal letter from someone telling me I seem to be on this list to
} flame Christianity and that my mode of conversation is out of line in this
} forum (my questioning God's existence or the validity of the notion of
} sin).  Only this one person has told me this, but it would be dishonest
} and foolish of me to continue unless I check it out with the rest of you.
}-- End of excerpt from WERLING

	Personally, I don't mind you being here in the slightest.  I'm
not at my best in dealing with agnostics but you seem to be sincere
as far as I can tell.  I don't see any reason you shouldn't stay.

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.
He who hates vices hates mankind.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:14:12 GMT

In article <CATHOLIC%92110914450466@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU> DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDY
CMS.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:24:51 GMT Bryan D. Boyle said:
>>70's.  Have you read what passes as a religious instruction book or set
>
>-----some text de;eted-----
>
>I guess this is where I get some of my discontect with the "modern"
>church.  There is, for me, a lack of a clear cut path.  I knew where
>I was in the Latin days.  Now so much seems to be left open.  I feel
>a lack of direction.  Where is the balance between blindly following
>and being open to new points of view?


I don't think that the word "balance" applies here. One balances two things of 
equal weight; e.g., 50 pounds of feathers balances 50 pounds of lead. But 
"blindly following" and "being open" are incommensurable--there is no common 
unit of measure or value between them. As always, Scripture gives good advice: 
test everything; cling to what is good. However, to follow this advice, you 
need to have a standard of what is good--a standard, moreover, that transcends 
individual preferences, predilections, lifestyles, temptations, etc.
     We do not "blindly" follow Christ, but we see with the eyes of faith. 
There is no use in being open merely for the sake of being open. An open mind 
is like an open mouth--it should close on something, preferably something meaty
>and nutritious.

>Could it be that this lack of rules, lack of direction, is a cause for a
>lack of interest by many young people?  I have a deep faith that seeks its
>own way in spite of the church building I'm in or the singing or lack
>thereof etc.  I still sometimes pray the Latin prayers and long for the pomp
>and ceremony that was all part of getting us (or at least me) into a frame of
>mind that was receptive to listening to God's word.  (But then, I don't
>like fast food restaurants or quickie oil change centers.)
Most of the blame for the fast food atmosphere at Masses in AMerican Parishes 
goes to a poor translation (I was going to say "pedestrian" but a pedestrian at
least walks. This translation lurches.), priests ad-libbing chattery prayers 
and explanations of symbolic activity, music redolent with the stink of the 
secular world, burlap vestments, a casual or playful approach to the awesome 
God, etc. We can keep the reforms of Vatican II and get rid of the
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Bellarmine on Galileo
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:30:23 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


    Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The 'data' that women
cannot be ordained is the dogma of the Catholic Church
that says they cannot be. (It is clearly a dogma.) Therefore
those theories (theologies) which conclude otherwise *do*
have to be abandoned. It is the task of theory to understand
the data. It is the task (one of the tasks) of theology
to understand the 'data of revelation' (= dogma). If your
theology doesn't fit dogma it is your theology that must 
change, however beautiful it may be. If your theory does
not fit data it is your theory that must change.
    Women cannot be priests not because they cannot stand
up in front of a congregation and give a sermon. Give
us a little more credit for intelligence than that! We
may be stupid, but even we recognize that a woman can 
repeat all the words and ceremonies of the Mass, sit in
a confessional, and preach.    I don't feel like repeating again all the arguments against women priests. But in essence, in my view,
they have to do with what women and men symbolize.
Sexuality is a language, and maleness and femaleness
mean different things. To think of sexuality in crude
"practical" terms is part of our crass commercialized
view of reality. My mother and father mean different
things to me. It is not a question of what tasks they
are able to perform. I would not care if my mother 
could bench press 300 lbs, or my father could sing
soprano. One is my father, and the other is my mother,
and those roles and those relationships are different.
You could try an experiment to see whether my father
could do some of the things my mother does. What
would that prove, for God's sake? He would still be
a father not a mother. These arguments that "it has
been shown that women can actually preach" are silly.
Who doubted it? 

   I didn't claim that a meaningful experiment had
shown that ordination had caused the Mainline churches
to decline. Note I said I was being flippant. Note
also I said these "experiments" were not properly
 controlled. Nor could they be! Personally, I believe
both the decline and the women's ordination are effects of 
the same cause: mushy liberal watering down of Christianity. 
Steve. :wq
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Lots of Questions for Catholics here...
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:32:29 GMT

In article <Pine.3.03.9211041117.A29506-c100000@dante> WERLING <awerling@NMSU.EDU> writes:
>How do you reconcile this?  You cannot use reason and pure faith...the two
>do not work together.
Sure they do.  Although your use of the word 'pure' is a little misleading
and ambiguous.  If you do not believe that reason in the context of faith
is possible, i.e. "the two do not work together," I suggest you begin reading
St. Paul, then the Church Fathers, and make your way through the theological
tradition of the Church through the twentieth century.  You'll find that your
view is held to a certain extent, but for the most part iconoclastic.
"Credo ut intelligam!"  "Fides quaerens intellectum!"  And all that jazz.

>I believe that all "things" have an inner beauty of their own.

Insofar as they are created by God, and thus have a relationship to God, or
simply and solely their own?

>> better put into words what I am trying to say.  But basically, it
>> doesn't matter if we are homosexual or not, for we are all sinners
>> and deserve death.
>
>What have we done to deserve death?  What have we done, for that matter,
>to have deserved life in the first place?  And are life and death good/bad
>things?  Or are they really neutralities?

We deserve death as being born into original sin.
We in no way deserve life, it is a free gift of God to us.  That is why a
rejection of life is a rejection of a gift of God, and consequently a rejection
of God, and so deserving of death.

>> It is through the love of God that we are given
>> grace for salvation.
>
>Salvation from what?  Death?  What is death?

Salvation from eternal separation from God, who created us to be with him
conditioned upon our free acceptance of Him in love.  Eternal separation from
our God is indeed death, death of the soul, as opposed to bodily death, for
God is the life of the soul.

>> Not that I can do it on my
>> own, by through His favor.
>
>This sounds nasty, but really isn't meant to be: if you can't do it on
>your own, why doesn't he just do it himself?

He does do it Himself, on the condition that we accept in love what He does.

>
>And I would most definitely assert that, because we have no way of knowing
>for sure that the Bible is God's word, we have no way of knowing what
>is/is not a sin.

Unless of course faith is a type of knowledge.

Peace,
John 


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Brent Winiger)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:08:43 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              12 Nov 1992 12:52:34 -0500 from <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:52:34 -0500 <URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> said:
>Brent,
>Yes and no, I think. The same action performed by two persons may be sinful
>for one but not the other, not _all_ actions, obviously, but some. As far
>as God's absolute rules for us, I see only two, love Him and love them.
>Listing sins is one of mans' pastimes:-) -J.J.

J.J.,
What criteria would you use for determining which of the two persons sinned
and which did not?  What criteria does God use?  Shouldn't people have an
objective criteria to use as guidelines for their lives?
     If those are God's only two absolute rules for us, does he have any
suggested rules?   Or do you feel that standards of behaviour don't matter to
God as long as we THINK we are loving him and mankind?

Brent
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:23:41 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Love & Christianity

Regarding Sacred Scripture, menstruation, homosexuality, etc.

The Roman Catholic point of view is that Scripture is authoritatively inter-
preted by the Church.  The church says Scripture forbids homosexuality. There-
fore there is no question of interpretation.  Unlike Protestants, we do not
believe that everyone is entitled to their own novel interpretation of
Scripture. Of course this may not apply to those not in communion with Rome,
yet you still have traditions the church has received.

Regarding menstruation: All of the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus etc. are
under the Old Covenant, and were for Jews only.  When Jesus came, he fulfilled
the Old Covenant, and it does not apply to us.  These matters that no longer
apply to us include instructions regarding menstruation and nocturnal
emissions and so forth.  HOWEVER, some moral laws are reiterated in the New
Testament, such as the Ten Commandments, laws regarding fornication, and
others.  Since the laws regarding menstruation were strictly part of the
Mosaic law, and since those laws were not repeated in the New Testament, they
no longer apply.

However, the Old Testament says, "No man shall lie with another man as with
a woman," and St. Paul reiterates this proscription by condemning those who
are inflamed with lust for other men (of course he also applies it to women).
Hence prohibitions against homosexuality still apply.  The fact that we no
longer follow laws of purification is of little consequence, because those are
not part of the New Covenant.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:47:30 -0500
From:         "William E. Aitken" <aitken@CS.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
              08 Nov 92 17:40:51 +0000.
              <9211081812.AA10815@cloyd.cs.cornell.edu>

> It seems to me that we are talking about two things here: please define
> how the restriction on women serving as acolytes has a bearing on where
> women (and men, for that matter) perform their ministry of lector.

Re-read the statement to which I was responding.  Eric calimed
[IMHO wrongly] that ``Women are forbidden to be in the sanctuary
during liturgy, period.''   None of your citations support this claim,
or answer my counter-claims.  Thanks for trying though.

						---- Bill.
From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:34:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Dick,

It doesn't really matter whether today's altar servers did what altar
servers did back then.

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.

Eric
From: JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Nature of List--Fossil
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:59:42 GMT
Organization: The American University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              5 Nov 1992 10:30:55 -0600 from <waldbill1981@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU>

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:30:55 -0600 <waldbill1981@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU> said:
>Where are the fruits of Vatican II?  Where is the RENEWAL that we hear so much
>about?

Gosh, Brian, I see it everywhere I look. I see people re-energized and
working at bringing about the Kingdom. I see lively and engaging
liturgies, with people bursting out with the power of the Spirit. I see
people dedicating themselves to working with the outcasts and the poor,
both in the US and in the missions. I see a recommitment to gospel
values, and an opening to and an appreciation of other Christians. I see
people taking joy in discovering the Scriptures, and a new dedication to
living the Gospels. I see new lines of communication opening between the
leaders in the church and those who they serve. I see more of a fraternal
and communal attitude every day. I see an involved church, a church
celebrating all of its members -- a church filled with love. These are
all signs of the Spirit working powerfully in the church.

I'm sorry if the churches where you gather are dusty and dying, but
there's no reason to project this on the church as a whole. Actually,
Brian, I found your post to be very sad. I sensed, in both your post and
the one to which you were responding, a longing for a church and a
society which no longer exist. It troubles me that you would want the
dead past more than the challenging present and the hopeful future.

In fact, it really troubles me that almost without exception you place
yourself outside the church of today. You prefer Latin; you prefer a mass
which is not the current mass of the universal church; you prefer a mass
where it's just you and Christ and see no need for community; and you
think the Holy Father is acting incorrectly, as well as "the priests,
nuns, and bishops". Well, let's face it, Brian, you are talking about
almost the whole church here!

Brian, the church you long for and wish after is gone. This is a new
time, and the church has changed to respond to the problems and
challenges of present day. It's really not all the strange. We are the
church, and so we must have a structure which helps us deal with the
world of today. It must understand us, and help us get closer to God and
help us build God's Kingdom. When I look around and see all the wonders I
mentioned in my first paragraph I thank God for these changes. I hope
and pray that, in time, you will be able to come to appreciate them too.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: FAQ for Catholic Mailing List
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 11:09:20 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>
> 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.)

Perhaps you didn't read my posting completely.  As I mentioned, there are many
things that are factual which a FAQ document would clear up.  An example of
this would be the structure of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, or perhaps
a listing of the various Rites recognized by Rome other than the Roman Rite.
As to doctrinal or moral issues, it still is possible to refer people to the
appropriate Church documents, and to works by respected authors that discuss
these issues.

>
> 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?

Again, maybe you should re-read my original article.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|