HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Character and ordination
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:59:11 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department


J.J. --

   You asked me -- I thought it was, maybe it was John O'Callaghan, so if
it was, go ahead and skip this one -- to explain a little more about what
I meant by "character" and the question of women's ordination.

   Well, I'm afraid I can't add a whole lot to the volumes of debate which
have already appeared here, the latest installment occurring a month or
so ago.  The best I can do is help to clarify what I meant.  I don't
intend to try to persuade anyone so much as to try to make my meaning clear.

   Sacraments come in two sorts, I have always been taught.  Some are a
"state of enduring grace," such as the sacraments of marriage and extreme
unction, while others mark a change of character.  Such sacraments are
baptism, confirmation, and holy orders.  The Church teaches, as far as I've
always understood, that these really, truly, and actually leave a stamp,
a character (the Greek word), on the soul.  So, to stress an earlier comment,
being a priest is not just a matter of being able to perform the functions.
(Again, no one seriously doubts women are incapable of this.)

   But what the Church does teach, in addition, is that only a baptized
male validly receives ordination.  I realize, believe me I do, that it
must be very hard for some women who believe they feel called to be faced
with the reality that they cannot be validly ordained.  Forgive me if that
sounds too blunt.  I guess the point I try to keep in mind is that, no one
"chooses" to become a priest, but instead, God chooses him.  There is a
real danger to looking at priesthood only in terms of being a job, a position
of authority, and so forth.  It would seem to emphasize the human rather
than the divine side of desires.

   Again, I don't think I'll be able to persuade you, and I am not trying
to, but I hope that you can at least see what it is I was trying to say.


In Christ,

John R.
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Where There's Hope There's Life Euthanasia Kills Them Both
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 06:06:53 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) writes:

> Where There's Hope, There's Life--Euthanasia Kills Both
>
> CLUB OF LIFE by Linda Everett On Oct. 30, an Allegan, Mich.
> probate court refused the request of a woman to starve to death
> her husband, who is partially paralyzed and brain-damaged since
> a 1987 accident. Mary Martin claims that her husband, Michael,
> 41, who communicates through nods, waves, and a computer device,
> has ``lost his dignity. He's had a colostomy. He wears a diaper.
> He can't feed himself.'' For this she wants to kill him.
> She ignores the great strides Mike has made in physical therapy
> in the last two years, and reduces his visits with old work
> buddies and the hours he works on a new communications device
> to living ``like a vegetable.'' She pummels him every other
> day with the question: ``Do you want to die?''

I can't help but wonder how much life insurance this guy has.  If he were to
commit suicide, she wouldn't get any of that money, but if she (or a doctor)
kills him, she probably would be able to claim it.



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:01:34 MST
From:         Brent Winiger <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality
              12 Nov 1992 16:14:44 EST from <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:14:44 EST Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
>Brent Winiger (ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU) writes:
>
>>I really can't picture God condemming the actions of one person because that
>>person knew his action was wrong while justifying the same action in another
>>person because that person felt good about it.
>
>I thought most Catholics believe and that the church teaches that intention is
>a
>necessary part of sin.  If it is not, then I can agree with you on this.  If
>sin
>is, on the other hand, willful, then it is most definitely possible for one
>person to sin while another who performs exactly the same actions does not, and
>J.J. is correct.
>
>In fact, I *know* I've seen this condition stated in these very messages in the
>not-too-distant past.
>

 You've got a good point here Brian.  But doesn't the intention refer to the
act itself?  For instance, If I forget to pay for something, I haven't really
stolen since there was no intent.   I guess the same would be true for some-
one who really didn't know their action was against God's will.  But does that
ignorance really excuse a person if he/she has been exposed to the Truth?
I'm referring back to the example J.J., I and Jim were discussing.  I suspect
many people use a different criteria for sin than what is portrayed in the
Bible and Tradition because they don't like what the Bible has to say about
sin.  I'm concerned that the relativist position on sin ignores people's
responsibility to determine God's will for us.  I'm not sure that type of
ignorance and lack of intent is as easily justified.  Perhaps someone more
knowledgeable on the Church's teachings about sin can clarify the matter for
us.



> Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com


Brent
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:54:10 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 6

    		    Friday, November 6, 1992

Philippians 3:17-4:1 	    Psalm 122	     	Luke 16:1-8

	     	     FAITH AS A FORCE FIELD

"The worldly take more initiative than the other-worldly when it comes to
 dealing with their own kind." --Luke 16:8

    Jesus taught His followers, "the other-worldly," to take initiative as
business people in the world do.  Although we don't take initiative with
the same motives or for the same goals, we Christians are called to move
powerfully by the Spirit, to be impelled by love (II Cor 5:14).  By taking
strong initiative, we can force our way into God's kingdom (Lk 16:16).  In
other words, by taking spiritual initiatives we can receive things from God
that we would otherwise never have received.  For example, the Syro-Phoenician
woman forced her way into God's kingdom.  Through her prayerful initiative,
she hastened the time for Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles, and Jesus set her
daughter free from the devil (Mt 15:27-28).  Hezekiah by his prayerful
initiative received an extra fifteen years of life (Is 38:2-5).  Ahab by his
initiative in fasting postponed God's judgment on him and his family
(I Kgs 21:27-29).  Mary through her prayerful initiative got Jesus to turn
water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana (Jn 2:3ff).

    When we take initiative and take God's kingdom by force, we don't force
God to change his mind, but we open ourselves up wide enough to receive the
fullness of God's grace.  The faith we express in taking spiritual initiative
is a force field in which we can change our hearts.  Then we take God's
kingdom by force.


Prayer:  Father, may I express my faith in a forceful way.

Promise: "He will give a new form to this lowly body of ours and remake it
	  according to the pattern of His glorified body, by His power to
	  subject everything to himself."  Phil 3:21

Praise:  Gail forced the drug dealers out of her neighborhood with daily
	 prayer for them.

-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:32:06 MST
From:         Brent Wingier <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Love & Christianity
              6 Nov 1992 12:59:35 EET from <milton@PROBITAS.CS.UTAS.EDU.AU>

On Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:59:35 EET Simon Milton said:
>  Dear Catholic news-readers,
>
>  Why  is  it  that fundamentalists believe that they alone possess the
>  truth? I'm not impressed by the arguments treating homosexuality as a
>  disorder and homosexual acts as soul-destroying.  It is probable that
>  most if not all of you (fundies) have  no  idea  about  a  homosexual
>  lifestyle  and  might  assume  that  all homosexuals are paedephilic,
>  promiscuous, hateful, selfish, violent and damaged individuals.
>
>  Once again elements in the Church choose to  ignore  the  POSSIBILITY
>  however remote that ones sexuality might just be God given - and thus
>  beyond our choosing.  Have many of you contemplated that?
>
>  | Simon Milton,			  | Phone : +61 02 202933 (W)       |

Simon, I think you'd find more compassion for homosexuals among us "fundies"
than you might suspect.  The problem is very simple.  We believe the Bible and
Sacred Tradition are God's revelation and will for us.  We honestly, really
believe that.  Those sources are quite clear as to what we should believe
about homosexual acts.  What would you have us do?  Abandon the anchors of our
faith because you disagree with us?  If you want us to change our minds about
the sinfulness of homosexual acts, you'll have to show us why we should stop
believing that the Bible is the Word of God, and why Sacred Tradition is not
God's will for us.
     Many homosexuals believe we "fundies" have some immense irrational hatred
for them.  Simon, that is simply not the truth.  We recognize you as another
human being deserving of our respect and benevolence.  We simply believe that
homosexual acts are not God's will for us, his creation, anymore than pre-
marital sex or adultry is.
     I recognise we won't agree on this issue, but I'd just like you to
understand where we are coming from.  Its not from hate, its from believing
in Scripture and Tradition.

Brent
From: bishop4559@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: question
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:56:20 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <921030111641.28e33404@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM>, URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
> Brian, the problem obviously lies in those who think of women as just
> "invalid matter", that's a fact they can't deal with:-) - J.J.

What's that supposed to mean?

Pizza and Beer cannot become the Body of Christ.  INVALID MATTER
People cannot be baptized with gasoline.  INVALID MATTER
Women cannot be priests.  INVALID MATTER

Does this mean that I have difficulty dealing with gasoline, pizza, and beer? 
Heck no, I love 'em all.  Geeesh.  A fact is a fact.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:48:44 EST
From:         DICK HAROLD <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Question
              4 Nov 1992 20:36:20 MST from <ABDWINIG@IDBSU.IDBSU .EDU>

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:36:20 MST Brent Winiger said:

- - - - - some text deleted - - - - -

>   As to you Andrew, specifically, I welcome the opportunity to listen to your
>concerns about the Catholic religion and Christianity in general as long as the
>discussions remain non-flame oriented, and as long as you give us a fair
>chance to explain why we believe what we believe.  I can't speak for anyone
>else Andrew, but I believe your questions have been fair for the most part.
>
>   I'm a firm believer that we Catholics have a duty to witness to
>non-Catholics.  I think this forum represents a unique way to reach people who
>otherwise would not hear anything like these discussions and who are genuinely
>searching for truth.  I'd like to know how the other members feel about this.
>
Here here!

|======================================================================|
|  DICK HAROLD    *   ITNEWS@INDYCMS.BITNET  *   IUPUI INDIANAPOLIS    |
|                *  ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU  *                        |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|      Old Cars Are Fun.  New Cars Are Just Transportation Modules     |
|======================================================================|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Attorney General
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:19:50 GMT

In article <BxIEDJ.3Cq@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
>   One lamentable consequence of the election is
>that the country will lose a very fine Attorney General.
>                    Steve.

Any relation?
Peace,
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:32:27 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      Re: Question

Anddrew Werling wrote:

>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.

I think the list is made up mostly of followers of the Lord Jesus Christ,
who proclaim "JESUS IS LORD!!"  Count me in that group.  That does not
mean that I think you are unwelcome to read and write with us.  If you
were not searching for the answers to some pretty important questions, you
would not be here.  I am not implying that this group has *the* answers
for you, but as long as you get something, no matter how nebulous, from us,
I say, "Praise God that you are with us."

Thank you for your sensitivity, and know that I pray for you every day.
I pray that you will be open to receive every grace and blessing God wants
you to have,
	through the power of the Father,
	the wisdom of the Son, and
	the love and mercy of the Spirit.

--Wallace
---------

Jane Wallace Mayo       | Jesus, Redeemer, have mercy on me
mayo@cs.utk.edu         |    and set me free.
From: 75furlong@cua.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:18:45 GMT
Organization: The Catholic University of America

"(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
> Alison,
> 	As one being educated (presumably) at the Catholic University
> of America, I would hope you would be aware of the differences between
> something as fundamental as the nature of the priesthood and the
> sacrament of marriage vs. something like the Galileo case.  The
> two are not at all comparable.

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!_

As long as we're discussing Bible inerrancy (also in another post): there are a
number of areas where the Bible contradicts itself. It may have been divinely
inspired, but it was nonetheless written by men who were (as all humans)
flawed, and influenced by the society in which they lived. I don't mean this to
sound sarcastic, but if God appeared to me, the last thing I would be worried
about would be taking accurate notes. Plus, there is also the issue of
translation - for instance, in Hebrew, the word Adham (I'm not sure I have the
spelling right on this, it's been a while) means "person." It is a completely
genderless term which was translated into the name "Adam" and the word "man" in
Genesis. I don't have other examples off the top of my head, but I know that
people have done research on this.

Finally, I was amused by your .sig in another post which read "Your
ideal lover is just around the corner" (or something close to this). Too bad
that, if that lover should be of the same sex, nothing can come of it :).

-Alison
 75furlong@cua.edu
From: JIM@AMERICAN.EDU (Jim McIntosh)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:17:58 GMT
Organization: The American University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              9 Nov 1992 13:35:45 EST from <ITNEWS@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:35:45 EST DICK HAROLD said:
>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 find the new attitude refreshing, and while I can tolerate the new
catechism for those who need it (as I do the latin mass) I hope that as
time goes on the need for it will diminish.

I'll grant you it is comforting to have a clear set of rules. The problem
is that without understanding the reasons behind the rules, the rules
themselves become the focus of our attention. In other words, the church
says it's wrong to eat meat on Friday. Why is it wrong? Because the
church says so. To eat meat on Friday would be to sin because you are
disobeying the church. What then of murder? The church says it's wrong.
If we commit a murder are we guilty of murder or again disobeying the
church? It's too easy to look it up in the book. If it's there then it's
a sin, if it's not then let's do it.

It's much scarier to be on one's own, to have to evaluate our life in
terms of our conscience, and to have to decide for ourselves what acts we
commit are sins. Scarier, but much healthier. Yes, we should listen to
the church for guidance.  But we should also spend time in prayer, and
make up our own mind. The end result is that we will appreciate the full
horror of murder, but it may also be that we end up eating that hamburger
on Friday if we find that it is not a sin for us.

>I'd like to see more stringent rules within the church while keeping
>open the avenues for change and flexibility.  Is this too much to ask or
>expect?  Am I out of line, too old fashioned or just round the bend?

Well, the catechism seems like a good step. It will provide a clear set
of rules for those who need them. Being raised in an atmosphere where
independent thought was not valued, and then having all rules gone over-
night, can be frightening and for people like you I certainly welcome the
new catechism. I would hope for the kids, though, that we continue to
teach them to form their own independent minds about sin so that the next
generation, and those following, will not need a catechism.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
From: PIATKONM@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (Nancy M. Piatkowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: is there a list owner?
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:14:31 GMT
Organization: from SUNY College at Buffalo, NY 14222
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: catholic@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"catholic@auvm"
X-VMS-Cc: PIATKONM
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Help!
Is there a listowner out there? I have been trying to set my account nomail and
the vax at auvm keeps telling me I don't exist as a member of the list- I tried
unsubbing and got the same message-  I need to cut the volume of mail for a
while and am going nomail. It is interesting as a non-member of the list I
still get the full compliment of messages- I wrote the list owners on Saturday
and asked for help- and still no reply- HELP!
Nancy Piatkowski
piatkonm@snybufva.bitnet

ps: I know this has nothing to do with faith, morals or the magisterium but
HELP!
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:23:34 CST
From: <U14663@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Church of England & women priests

This was indeed a joyous day for a part of christianity.  The Church of
England voted in favor of ordaining women priests.  I truly believe that
Jesus is overjoyed also.  Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church will open
its heart to the Spirit and also be so moved.  But I fear it may not
happen until the death of John Paul II and replacement of the Curia.
Perhaps they saw the tears of joy in the eyes of the women in england
and realized the pain they have caused.  Perhaps, but I doubt it.  And
that doubt causes me great pain.  I can pray for them.  But God has so
far not answered those prayers and has permitted this disease of
patriarchy to continue.  Lest someone ask for the biblical or church
document to substantiate this as a true disease or they will not
believe, I can only say that my heart and soul tell me it is so.  Not
much for the legalistic folks but that's the best I can do.  I don't
think one will readily find words that contradict the practice of so
many centuries.   And lest someone say that a practice of many centuries
is proof of God's will, I can only say that repeatedly doing something
wrong doesn't make it right.
Dick Murphy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Attorney General
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:13:26 GMT

   Dear John, Yes, proud brother. Steve.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Altar Girls Documentation
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:35:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.174133.22263@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>Steve cites GI 70.
>>   Lastly note the final sentence, "... from where it would be
>>suitable for her..."  This implies that women should give the readings
>>from somewhere different than the usual place, i.e. the sanctuary.
>
>Don't forget the appendix
>
>66. WOMEN AS READERS
> 
> The Conference of Bishops has given the permission for women to serve
>as readers in accord with no. 66 of the General Instruction.

   Bob, do you have an attribution for that?  It's not that I doubt
what you quoted; I would just like to know where it came from, since I
can't find it in what I have.  It looks like an interpretation of a
later document, probably from American bishops.

   One thing I would note is that what Bob quotes does not contradict
what I said; rather, it takes it into account, i.e.:

	"the reservation of a single place for all the biblical
	readings is more significant than the person of the reader,
	whether ordained or lay, whether woman or man (cf. GI, no.
	272)"

   So the only difference between it and the GIRM is that it allows
female lectors to read from the sanctuary, if that's where the other
readings are given.

   Also, it reaffirms the prohibition against female altar servers.

   As far as actual practice, this reminds me that when I attended
Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew (Cardinal Hickey's church) in
Washington, D.C., the practice there was different than in the above
quote, as the Gospel was read from a more prominent place than were
the other readings (the priest climbed stairs to get to it).

   The reference to no. 272 of the GIRM has to do with having a
fitting place (physical location) for proclaiming God's word, but does
not mention all of the readings being given from the same place.

   Although what it says seems pretty reasonable to me, I still would
like to know the source of this document, since it claims to take
precendence over the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic