HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:31:02 GMT

In article <92323.0118282893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>So are you saying that since it has never been done, it can never be done.
>Well then one should also eliminate the current method of choosing Popes,
>Papal Infallibility (a rule which is only about a century old) and
>all of Vatican Council II

1) The successor of Peter has always been chosen by the successors of the
Apostle's.  Because of the expansion in the number of successors, as the
Church expanded throughout the world, as a need was felt to have local
ordinaries, the practice developed of having the successor of Peter chosen
by a limited group selected from those successors, i.e. bishops.  But
it remains true to say that the successor of Peter has always been chosen
by the successors of the apostles.  This remains true even in the worst
days of political intrigue in the selection of the pope.
2) The council fathers at Vatican I, who defined papal infallibility, did
not understand themselves as giving the pope a new function or power.  They
understood themselves as codifying in a counciliar way a function that
they understood the successor of Peter to have always had.  This is generally
the case in conciliar statements: they do not propose new faith, but codify
in the language of the time what has always been part of the faith, typically
in the context of challenges to the faith, that a council thinks must be
settled.  So it is true to say that the codification of papal infallibility 
by a council of the Church is a little over a century old, it is false to
say that before the codification of it at Vatcian Council I, the office of
pope did not possess the infallibility codified at Vatican I.

Peace,
John


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: tjrad@iastate.edu (Thomas J Radosevich)
Subject: Catechism  
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:42:39 GMT


Just a quick question for anyone who has information:  

Today a fellow Grad student (who knows I'm Catholic) came into lab and
told me my work was sinfull because the Church just declared genetic
engineering a sin.  Any truth to this or was this another misinterpritation
cascade?  (I know the English version is'nt due for a bit) 

Tom Radosevich
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:21:42 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
 <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu> <BxMvx5.GDx@news.udel.edu>

In article <BxMvx5.GDx@news.udel.edu>, stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz)
says:
>
>In article <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu    n
>(Joh
>DiMarco) writes:
>>U14663@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>
>1) What radical signs do you see, signs "of the times", to persuade you
>that in this century God is making the divine Will known in ways that
>were not so in other centuries?

The fact that not enough men are being called to the priesthood. How many
parishes in Europe and North America, even once fervent Quebec are without
parish priests. Why would God not call enough men to the priesthood unless
it was because He was calling enough women to meet the shortage?

>2) Has there been a new consciousness about the status of women which
>is powerful enough to be the beginning of a new interpretation of God's
>revelation in Jesus, an interpretation which suggests that only in
>this century has it become clear that Jesus meant for the priesthood
>to be for both men and women?  What signs are there of this new

Where does it say in the Bible that women cannot be priests. Indeed where does
it say that we should have Cardinals and Popes?

>consciousness?  How would the Church, having the power (as Jim McKintosh
>points out after reading the document on women and priesthood) to
>change its mind about this point, be brought to the understanding that
>this is God's will?

By the crisis of not having enough men called to the priesthood

>3) Is the male-only priesthood a "big deal" or not?  I'm asking
>this because it seems like we all want to have it both ways.  a) It's
>not a big deal so why won't the Church allow women priests?  b) It's
>a big big deal so why won't the Church allow women priests?  I used
>to hold to position a), not I hold to b).  When I ask myself that
>question -- why WON'T the Church allow women priests?? -- I have
>to conclude that it won't because the evidence would have to be
>overwhelmingly evident that God willed this, in order for the Church
>to make this change.  Either gender is a big deal, or it is not.
>I used to think it was not, now I think it is.

There is a crisis of numbers in the clergy, is there not?
Why is this, is it by design or is God just becoming forgetful about calling
enough men to the priesthood?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: gsilano@epas.utoronto.ca (Giulio Silano)
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:50:47 GMT
Keywords: Magisterium

Martin Barry writes that "the Church has always made a distinction between
truths which are are _de fide_, the rejection of which puts the individual outside the Church, and beliefs which are not
>held to be known infallibly. To these we owe _obsequium religiosum_, but the
>Church teaches that one's (properly informed) conscience takes precedence on
>matters of right and wrong."

The issue of the authority of the magisterium seems to arise
frequently enough here to warrant quoting the *Code of Canon Law*,
can. 752: "While the assent of faith is not required, a religious
submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which
either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their
authentic *magisterium*, declare upon a matter of faith or morals,
even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive
act.  Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid
whatever does not accord with that doctrine."  I hope that the text
makes clear enough that, although I am not bound to believe what the
*magisterium* does not teach infallibly, I am still bound to act as if
I believed what it teaches ordinarily.  Reflection and experience will
reveal that, unless such a rule is followed, Catholic life will become
(perhaps has already become) an endless cacophony that distracts the
faithful from the pursuit of holiness and makes it impossible for the
Church to be an effective Mother and Teacher (as John XXIII famously
described her).  Let's stop using the excuse: it's not infallible so I
do not have to believe it.  As for the role of conscience, it is worth
remembering that what "informed" means is that I have taken a properly
deferential attitude before the pronouncements of the *magisterium*,
whether they are infallible or ordinary.>
Giulio Silano.


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:11:11 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pastoral letter
              (Nov 18,  4:38pm)

Steve, you illustrate very well one of the main differences between
the Church of Rome, and the Anglican church.  The COR is a 'top down'
authority, while the Anglican church is a 'bottom up' authority, with
the Episcopos deriving their authority from the people.

Is it really your contention that the laity of the Roman Church does
not receive the action of the Holy Spirit?  Is communion with God
relegated only to the Bishops and above?  Obviously these are
rhetorical questions, but to blithely disregard the expressed opinions
of the laity and many priests as unworthy of notice is, IMO, not in
keeping with Paul's teachins about the various parts of the Body of
Christ.   Without the people there is no Church.

Shalom,                             Len Howard OSL
                                    tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Reply from NBC re: Sinead O'Connor
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:43:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.191224.16186@news.nd.edu> jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.182250.24107@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>>But 'Saturday Night Live' DID use a 7-second delay (or was it five
>>seconds?) a few years back when Eddie Murphy was the guest host. 
>>Apparently they were afraid he might use some foul language.  Why can't
>>they do that every week?
>
>They also showed a delayed broadcast of Sinead O'Connor's action on the 
>Pacific Coast, as the show is not ordinarily broadcast live in the Pacific
>time zone.

   They did the same thing in Indiana, which was an hour behind New
York at the time.  Most of Indiana is always EST, whereas New York was
on EDT.

   I was watching SNL that night, but missed her tantrum, and only
assume that the picture-ripping was shown delayed here.  I turned the
channel as soon as she came on, because I already couldn't stand her
anyway.

   I did happen to see SNL the next week, when Joe Pesci held the
picture up for the camera.  It had been taped back together, and this
brought applause from the audience.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:05:46 GMT

In article <6066@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:
>The issue is whether the will of God is to be discerned in the faith of the
>ordinary people who make up the Church. It seems to me (well, OK, it seemed
>to John Henry Newman) that it is a gravely distorted view of the nature of
>the Church to suppose that truth is given first to the Pope and Bishops, and
>then handed on by them to the rest of the faithful. In fact it's the other
>way round: the Pope and Bishops articulate that which is believed by the
>larger Church, and are in danger of error if what they teach differs totally
>from it. So if EVERY Christian except the Pope and a few hundred Bishops
>believed something to be a manifestation of the will of God, the first thing
>that should be subjected to scrutiny is whether the leaders of the Church
>might need to think again.

   Perhaps, but this should not be taken to mean that doctrine is
subject to popular consent.  I would further assert that the entire
Church consists not merely of the hierarchy and the laity, but also of
those members who have gone before us over 2000 years (and of course
Christ).  Your argument therefore supports adherence to the Sacred
Tradition that has been believed by those faithful over 2000 years, in
which there have never been women priests.

   Also, if the bishops are to keep in mind the belief of the living
faithful, they are to keep in mind the belief of the Church Triumphant
as well.  If we apply this to the area of women priests, the support
for them in the "larger Church" becomes a tiny minority, if it was not
already.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:31:33 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Pastoral letter
              (Nov 23,  7:08pm)

Right!  We have great areas of disagrement on exactly what is believed
in the Episcopal Church, which is the source of its inclusiveness.  We
can accomodate almost from Calvin to The Roman Catholic Church in
doctrinal belief, and Anglican theologians are constantly
reconstructing doctrine.  Everyone in the Episcopal Church believes
only a few things, God, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Real
Presence, the holdings of the Nicene Creed, and the communal nature of
the Church.  I have been trying to get down to the core beliefs, and
this is what I have come up with.  I hope others will comment on this
from their Anglican Point of View.  And thanks for understanding my
point of view even if you don't agree with it.  We are always free to
agree to disagree and go on to something else.

Shalom, Steve                           Len Howard OSL
                                        tas@pegasus.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:34:12 HST
From:         Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Priest shortage
              shortage" (Nov 19,  3:21pm)

In our liturgics class, we were talking about the Anglican orders bit
and the prof was telling us that it involved a charge that there were
inadequate numbers of bishops involved in the ordination of some
Anglican bishops.  The well-known bull of 1896 "Apostolicae Curae"
resulted.  Then later on the Church of Rome started looking at how
many bishops were present at some early ordinations in the Western
Rite Church, and found evidence of some similar defficiencies, and the
matter has been sort of put on the back burner.  Although the Second
Vatican Council included the Anglican Communion among the separated
Churches which "because of the lack of the sacrament of orders...have
not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic
mystery", the Council gave fresh impetus to common exploration of the
theology of ministry and priesthood.  Of course this received a great
set-back last week, but the offical objection to Anglican Orders seems
to have lessened somewhat since 1896.

Shalom,                       Len Howard OSL
                              tas@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:44:46 GMT

In article <9211200021.AA07340@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Steve, your logic is circular.  If the only reason for not having
>women priests is because we have never had women priests in 2000 years
>and we are respecting that tradition, then we will never change.  And
>the same logic can be applied to anything new or different that we
>want to do.  At the time the language of the Mass was changed from
>Latin to English, it could have been held that the Mass had never been
>done in English before, and so we should respect tradition and
>continue to do the Mass in Latin.  Same logic.  But the language of
>the Mass was changed, for what was held to be compelling reasons.
>   I submit that there may come to be held compelling reasons why
>women should be ordained as priests, and the fact that it has never
>been done before is not a reason for not making the change.

   No, I'm not using circular logic.  All teachings of the Catholic
Church have some Apostolic origin.  They may be refined over the
years, but they still have a beginning in Apostolic times.  The
language of the Mass is only incidental, and so is not a valid
analogy.

   Women priests, on the other hand, would require a basic
redefinition of the priesthood.  There have never been women priest in
the Catholic Church.  But furthermore, heretical sects who attempted
to ordain women (e.g. Gnostics) have always been condemned for it,
from early days.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Pastoral letter
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:08:54 GMT

In article <9211202357.AA24870@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>Steve, my model for the Episcopal Church would be:
>    God->laity->Deacons->Priests->Bishops, with each deriving their
>authority from those on the left.  I realize it is upside down to you,
>but that is the way it is in the Episcopal Church.  There are
>obviously other aspects to the relationships but when we draw arrows,
>the relationship of the laity and God is the important one, and God
>does not only speak to the laity thru the Priest, but directly.
>Deacons vow obedience to their Bishop but are not relieved of
>responsibility for their own actions in relationship to God, and their
>responsibility to the laity from which they were called.  It is a
>TOTALLY different situation, which impacts greatly on how we think and
>believe in the Episcopal Church.

   Len, I hope the tone of my last message on this wasn't too harsh.
I kind of rushed it out in a hurry, and later it looked worse than I
thought.

   Anyway, I later thought that your picture of the model would indeed
be what you just wrote above.  I don't agree with it, but I do
understand it.  Sort of the Ross Perot model of the Church 8-).  The
trouble I see with it is that it makes it harder for everyone to
believe the same things.

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:43:35 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
>In article <...> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>So are you saying that since it has never been done, it can never be done.
>>Well then one should also eliminate the current method of choosing Popes,
>>Papal Infallibility (a rule which is only about a century old) and
>>all of Vatican Council II
[stuff deleted]
>the statement on papal infallibility was a
>codification of tradition (and, contra to your obvious vitriolic view of
>ex cathedra statements, has only been used _TWICE_ since Vatican Council
>I codified it in the 1870's...) and a lot of the egregarious abuses that
>devolved _out_of_ Vatican Council II (but not the statements and beliefs
>of the council itself...there is a difference) should be eliminated.

Bryan, the tradition of Papal Infallibility may have a narrow
application, but for Catholics and others who are obviously less
sophisticated in the workings of the Church than you believe that almost
anything that the Pope says is Infallible, be it a homily, letter, bulla,
or what have you.  So, it is not incorrect to challenge the popular
perception of Papal Infallibility.

-- 
  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"  
        _The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
      The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Priest shortage...
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 07:20:56 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

This weeks _Time_ magazine cover story, entitled "The Second Reformation," is
quite informative.  What struck me as particularly interesting were some
statistics concerning the number of male priests in this country.  The article
says that "Nearly 300 US parishes are without a priest, reports Ruth Wallace of
George Washington University, and three-fourths of them are led by women.  If
the present patterns continue, the number of male priests will have fallen 40%
between 1966 and 2005, which will increase the demand for women substitutes"

Now, the debate over the ordination of women aside, it seems to me that the
Vatican and the American bishops should wake up and realize that just how much
of a problem situation we have here.  Is anyone aware of any research which has
been done to try to figure out just why the major decline in the number of
priests?  Of course, instinct tells me that the celibacy requirement is
probably the number one factor, but I'm wondering if there have been any real
studies on this.

While the debate over women in the priesthood should continue, it's obvious
that it probably won't be resolved in the RCC by the end of the century.  That
being the case, we need to initiate some drastic actions to increase the call
to vocations.  If women are administrators in 200+ parishes, the problem of
priestless parishes is already a grave situation.  Rather than spending nine
years bickering over an inadequate answer to the call for women priests (the
Bishop's Pastoral Letter), perhaps the time would have been better spent
figuring out ways to increase the number of *male* priests, before we are left
with no priests at all.



|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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:23:57 -0500
From:         mayo@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject:      "One Bread, One Body", Nov. 18

                    Wednesday, November 18, 1992
            Dedication of the Churches of Peter and Paul
                  Rose Philippine Duchesne, Virgin

Revelation 4:1-11           Psalm 150               Luke 19:11-28

                     KING JESUS OR KING ME?

"A man of noble birth went to a faraway country to become its king, and then
 return." --Luke 19:12

    On Sunday, the last Sunday of the Church year, we will celebrate Christ
the King.  We will worship Him and commit ourselves to obey and serve Him in
all things.  However, many people say: "We will not have this man rule over
us" (Lk 19:14).  Jesus lovingly and gently tries to change their minds so
they acknowledge Him as King and receive the benefits of serving Him. However,
if these people insist on doing their own thing and being their own kings,
then they will destroy themselves.

    Will we live our lives for Christ the King?  Most Christians think they
will persevere in serving Christ, but the Bible warns us of a mass apostasy
at the end of the world (see II Thes 2:3).  We will not apostasize from
Christ the King if we are totally committed to Him, if we know and live the
Bible, if we obey the Pope and the Church, and if we share our faith with
others.  In other words, we obey Christ the King by obeying the Bible and the
Church, especially the Pope.  Moreover, if we share our faith in Christ the
King, we will keep the faith.


Prayer:  Father, may I be obedient to Peter's successor, the Pope, and serve
         You as a missionary like Paul.

Promise: "Day and night, without pause,  they sing: "Holy, holy, holy, is the
          Lord God Almighty, He Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come!'"
          Rv 4:8

Praise:  Rose Philippine was known as "the woman who always prayed."
-----
From "One Bread, One Body", reproduced with permission.
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: The Mystic Body of Christ
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:01:15 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <199211172112.AA05657@caritas.cotdazr.org> zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG (Gordon C. Zaft) writes:
>
>        No.  We are not all theologians

The theologian does not have privileged communication with the Holy Spirit:
what he (or she) elucidates, what the Magisterium articulates, is of
necessity derived from the faith of the wider Church.

[... My point about an instance in the history of the Church in which most of
the Bishops were in error for a time]

>        I think you are referring to Arianism.  While it's true that
>the majority (I think) of the bishops did succumb, the laity didn't have
>much to do with the final outcome from what I have read.

Newman quoting St Hilary of Poitiers: "The ears of the common people are
holier than the hearts of the priests".

Martin Barry.