Mr Angelica & Msgr Clark on EWTN Tonight
Edward Thorne
just outside Grand Central Station in New York.
The topic was the new papal document.
He said that the people were waiting for this for a long time.
By making the document part of Canon Law, the pope is putting the
responsibility for seeing that departments of theology and philosophy
at Catholic universities teach what the church teaches, as coming from
the Apostles.
Msgr Clark said that the dissidents know quite well what they are
doing, which is the secularization of the Catholic church.
He spoke forthrightly about the lack of leadership in the American
bishops. He said that may of them are afraid of being pilloried in the
press, but after all, that is what they are there for.
He said that if we get 3 or 4 bishops to show some action, that is all
that it will take to get the rest to follow.
I know that we have Bp Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Rigali of St Louis,
Chaput of Denver, Law of Boston, Malone of Youngstown. If they
continue to show leadership, they will eventually embarrass the
pusillanimous bishops into
acquiring some backbone.
The widespread return of benediction is an encouraging sign of things
looking up, Msgr Clark said.
However, among the Catholic colleges, Msgr Clark said that we might
lose a few.
In any event, it was one of the best interviews I致e seen on Mr
Angelica Live, on EWTN.
It is truly a grace from God that she has been able to start and expand
her network. At this point, she is practically the only Catholic in
the country with a nationwide audience who is loyal to the teaching
authority of the church and to Catholic doctrine.
God bless Mr Angelica!
* * * * *
St Paul, traveller of God, pray for us.
--Ed
Rocco Palmo
Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict. She has aquired a
false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of the
NCCB. It is not an official teacher of the Magisterium of the Church and is
not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated network that
presents its spin of things. So hold up on the hagiography.
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6nukv0$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
Edward Thorne
writes:
>My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a Cardinal
of the
>Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict. She has aquired
a
>false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of
the
>NCCB. It is not an official teacher of the Magisterium of the Church
and is
>not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated
network that
>presents its spin of things. So hold up on the hagiography.
Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it comes to a
quarrel between Mr Angelica and some bishop someplace, and I don't know
what either side of the quarrel is about, and if a gunman came up to me
and said, "Pick sides in the quarrel or your life!", I would pick Mr
Angelica.
Now, she may have gone off the deep end in what she said about Card
Mahony, but I think that she apologized for it.
But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the true
Catholic doctrine like she is.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
Legatus
<rpa...@geocities.com> wrote:
> My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a Cardinal of the
> Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict.
? Interdict? HER ORDINARY SUPPORTS HER! He's still on with his own show,
every monday night. Besides, unless something has changed in the last 1000
years, Interdict is a tool of the Roman Pontiff exclusively...and
traditionally has required a heck of a lot more than "slander" to be
brought into play. Besides which, you don't "inderdict" monasteries...
> She has aquired a
> false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of the
> NCCB.
Actually, she has aquired a TRUE sense of power...which is why some of the
bishops are running in circles trying to figure out what to do about her.
Do you not realize the propaganda machine they would have at their
disposal if they could reconcile with her? They could change the face of
Catholicism worldwide! Therein lies the danger to the looney left...if the
Bishops conference were to get together with her (and they could make it
last for more than 6 months), they'd be unstoppable. With the Bishops
behind her, she'd be on every cable system in the nation, with her working
with the Bishops, THEY'D get more coverage than they'd know how to use.
The potential is astronomical.
> It is not an official teacher of the Magisterium of the Church and is
> not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated network that
> presents its spin of things.
Recently, it has been pointed out to me that as Mother Angelica is a
"Superior of Women" operating under the jurisdiction of her Bishop....she
IS an "official teacher"...with an incredibly wide scope.
I'm not even going to touch the whole miracle issue...Card Mahoney's
canonical complaint has been canned by the Curia (half of whom have
appeared on EWTN). Card. Mahoney is in more danger of getting the boot
than MA is these days.
--
Steve
See Steve. See Steve snap. See Steve snap on Usenet. Snap Steve snap.
*Email address spamtected: "bellsouth.net"
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>In article <6o6ggm$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, "Rocco Palmo"
><rpa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a Cardinal of the
>> Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict.
>
>? Interdict? HER ORDINARY SUPPORTS HER! He's still on with his own show,
>every monday night. Besides, unless something has changed in the last 1000
>years, Interdict is a tool of the Roman Pontiff exclusively...and
>traditionally has required a heck of a lot more than "slander" to be
>brought into play. Besides which, you don't "inderdict" monasteries...
Actually, you can. Hasn't happened a lot since the middle ages, but it
can be done.
Now, I was asking you about predjudice. If a monk in L.A. started up his
own show, and you didn't like it, but the Ordinary there supported it, why
would that be less valid than Mother Angelica's Ordinary supporting hers?
Personally, I am suspicious that she would let him have his own TV show.
Sounds like buying favours, to me. I know you will disagree, but to me it
does.
Legatus
> In article <legatus-1107...@host-209-214-200-29.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
> >In article <6o6ggm$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, "Rocco Palmo"
> ><rpa...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a Cardinal of the
> >> Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict.
> >
> >? Interdict? HER ORDINARY SUPPORTS HER! He's still on with his own show,
> >every monday night. Besides, unless something has changed in the last 1000
> >years, Interdict is a tool of the Roman Pontiff exclusively...and
> >traditionally has required a heck of a lot more than "slander" to be
> >brought into play. Besides which, you don't "inderdict" monasteries...
>
> Actually, you can. Hasn't happened a lot since the middle ages, but it
> can be done.
I thought interdicts were for "secular" governments...Monasteries just got
"flattened".
> Now, I was asking you about predjudice.
When? I must have missed something
> If a monk in L.A. started up his
> own show, and you didn't like it, but the Ordinary there supported it, why
> would that be less valid than Mother Angelica's Ordinary supporting hers?
It wouldn't...but yes, you'd hear "The man's a looney!" coming all the way
from South Carolina. I think it is weird that nothing else has
successfully gotten off the ground.
> Personally, I am suspicious that she would let him have his own TV show.
Well, it is on the Catechism. And he's there every Monday taking calls, live.
> Sounds like buying favours, to me. I know you will disagree, but to me it
> does.
The network has ecclesiastical types running all over the place...they're
practically like ants at a picnic. "Priest and Bishops and Cardinals, OH
MY!" :)
We're still having tree interference on our dish, but they also provide
"gavel to gavel" coverage of the bishops spring and fall conferences
(CSPAN style)...or at least they used to, I can't see a thing during the
daytime. Every major happening at the National Shrine of the Immaculate
Conception is on (wacky "psalmists" and all)
EWTN runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Mother Angelica is on the screen
live for 2 one hour shows (with a "liberal" sprinkling of rebroadcasts)
and a half hour QVC home shopping style thingy...The rest of the time,
it's priests and laity.
John Harrison
>My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a Cardinal of the
>Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict. She has aquired a
>false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of the
>NCCB. It is not an official teacher of the Magisterium of the Church and is
>not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated network that
>presents its spin of things. So hold up on the hagiography.
I don't know why Cardinal Mahony should not take criticism like Pope
John Paul does. Maybe the Pope has more humility. Do any people in
Cardinal Mahony's area criticize Pope John Paul for his writings and
what does the Cardinal threaten them with?
Edward Thorne
>
>In article
<legatus-1107...@host-209-214-200-29.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
>Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>><rpa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a
Cardinal of the
>>> Holy Roman Church and subjected herself to interdict.
>>
show,
>>every monday night. Besides, unless something has changed in the last
1000
>>years, Interdict is a tool of the Roman Pontiff exclusively...and
>>traditionally has required a heck of a lot more than "slander" to be
>>brought into play. Besides which, you don't "inderdict"
monasteries...
>
>Actually, you can. Hasn't happened a lot since the middle ages, but
it
>can be done.
>
his
>own show, and you didn't like it, but the Ordinary there supported it,
why
>would that be less valid than Mother Angelica's Ordinary supporting
hers?
show.
me it
>does.
Hey, she knows on which side her bread is buttered on! :-)
Steve O.
>
> In <6o6ggm$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> "Rocco Palmo" <rpa...@geocities.com>
> writes:
> >
> of the
> a
> >false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of
> the
> >NCCB. It is not an official teacher of the Magisterium of the Church
> and is
> >not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated
> network that
> >presents its spin of things. So hold up on the hagiography.
>
> quarrel between Mr Angelica and some bishop someplace, and I don't know
> what either side of the quarrel is about, and if a gunman came up to me
> and said, "Pick sides in the quarrel or your life!", I would pick Mr
> Angelica.
Before I lay the smack down about this topic, Lemme preface
this by saying that even though Mahoney is from my area,
what I have to say has NOTHING to do with that.
First of all, Ed, by saying that you'd support Mother
Angelica over a bishop/Cardinal is really dangerously
cultish. After all, we are supposed to be loyal to ROME, and
by a LAY PERSON talking smack on a Cardinal and his
teachings is cause for her to be labeled a crackpot. Now
mind you, I disagree with a LOT of what the Church says, but
I am obedient, even though I haven't taken a vow, which I am
sure she did. She has no right, whether or not her Ordinary
supports her, to talk smack on ANYONE with a hint of
authority on the Church, whatever her disagrement is about.
Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
obedience.
> Now, she may have gone off the deep end in what she said about Card
> Mahony, but I think that she apologized for it.
I think...nah...I know of NO such apology.
> But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the true
> Catholic doctrine like she is.
Spun around and twisted the way she wants it, to develop a
cult-like following of mindless goons to throw out such
things as Vatican II, and whatever else doesn't feed the
beast she's created?
Chastity, Obedience, and Poverty.
> "Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
> gave me"
Is that a quote from Mother Angelica? ;)
BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
cloistered order?'
Steve (Our Lady, Queen of the Angels, Pray for us.) O.
Legatus
> > Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it comes to a
> > quarrel between Mr Angelica and some bishop someplace, and I don't know
> > what either side of the quarrel is about, and if a gunman came up to me
> > and said, "Pick sides in the quarrel or your life!", I would pick Mr
> > Angelica.
>
> Before I lay the smack down about this topic, Lemme preface
> this by saying that even though Mahoney is from my area,
> what I have to say has NOTHING to do with that.
THIS is going to be interesting...surferese (I can't wait for ICEL to get
to THAT one!) :)
> First of all, Ed, by saying that you'd support Mother
> Angelica over a bishop/Cardinal is really dangerously
> cultish. After all, we are supposed to be loyal to ROME, and
> by a LAY PERSON talking smack on a Cardinal and his
> teachings is cause for her to be labeled a crackpot. Now
> mind you, I disagree with a LOT of what the Church says, but
> I am obedient, even though I haven't taken a vow, which I am
> sure she did. She has no right, whether or not her Ordinary
> supports her, to talk smack on ANYONE with a hint of
> authority on the Church, whatever her disagrement is about.
This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often the
laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St. Francis
was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
> Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
> obedience.
She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to have
completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
> > Now, she may have gone off the deep end in what she said about Card
> > Mahony, but I think that she apologized for it.
>
> I think...nah...I know of NO such apology.
I was watching it when it happened.
> > But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the true
> > Catholic doctrine like she is.
>
> Spun around and twisted the way she wants it, to develop a
> cult-like following of mindless goons to throw out such
> things as Vatican II, and whatever else doesn't feed the
> beast she's created?
Whuff...you're WAY out of line here... I'm not sure I enjoy being called a
"mindless goon"...
> BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
> cloistered order?'
First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically received
dispensation for her media work.
janet
>
>BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
>cloistered order?'
Grin.... *I* asked that!
Yes, I think she is, but they can be allowed out of the cloister under
specific conditions, and apparently, she has the requisite
permissions...
--
janet
Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure;
I am sure, however, that 'en famille', they play Mozart
Karl Barth
janet
et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>
>> Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
>> obedience.
>
>She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to have
>completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
>
No.
Obedience is sworn not at all.
It is VOWED to the Order and the church, in the PERSON of the Superior.
(These are nuns, second Order, yes?).
Mother A. has superiors over her, to whom she owes obedience.
I am *not* saying she doesn't give it!! (The OFM's can sort out their
own, sheesh, we're still recovering from Fox....).
[]
>mindless goon"...
>
>> BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
>> cloistered order?'
>
>First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically received
>dispensation for her media work.
Even if she is the superior, she is still bound by the Rule.
Well, she's bound by Clare's "notes"... grin... she never called them a
Rule in her lifetime, for reasons that will instantly jump to the fore,
if you think about what was going on at the time, (AND why it took
Francis longer to get his order approved than it took Dominic!!).
Superiors are not laws unto themselves.
Particularly in the "new" mendicant orders, that was one of the changes
BOTH Dominic and Francis instituted!!
In the same way, neither OFM's or OP's have the ancient monastic vow of
stability, (which caused yet more trouble for both of them, trying to
get their Orders approved... oy vey...).
>
>--
Legatus
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <legatus-1207...@host-209-214-200-87.gsp.bellsouth.n
> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
> >
> >> Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
> >> obedience.
> >
> >She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to have
> >completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
> >
> No.
>
> Obedience is sworn not at all.
>
> It is VOWED to the Order and the church, in the PERSON of the Superior.
> (These are nuns, second Order, yes?).
pedant. :)
> Mother A. has superiors over her, to whom she owes obedience.
I THINK...her superiors are her local ordinary and the Pope...and God. I
don't THINK PCPA's have "provincials"...and certainly NOT the LCWR or
whatever they're calling themselves these days.
> I am *not* saying she doesn't give it!! (The OFM's can sort out their
> own, sheesh, we're still recovering from Fox....).
Matthew or Mulder? :)...or Michael J.
> []
> >mindless goon"...
> >
> >> BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
> >> cloistered order?'
> >
> >First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically received
> >dispensation for her media work.
>
> Even if she is the superior, she is still bound by the Rule.
>
> Well, she's bound by Clare's "notes"... grin... she never called them a
> Rule in her lifetime, for reasons that will instantly jump to the fore,
> if you think about what was going on at the time, (AND why it took
> Francis longer to get his order approved than it took Dominic!!).
Cathars.
St. Clare "organized" during the year of the Children's Crusade didn't she?
And I THOUGHT (oh just shoot me). That Francis was approved BEFORE the 4th
Lateran....and that Dominic was after. I'm in the middle of "Innocent III"
right now which is why that popped into my mind.
> Superiors are not laws unto themselves.
Neither are Cardinal Archbishops of Los Angeles (which is what started all this)
Steve O.
> This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often the
> laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St. Francis
> was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
I don't see the connection here. St. Francis preaching Holy
Poverty and Mother Angelica slagging Cardinal Mahoney are
total non-comparisons. Please explain.
> > Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
> > obedience.
>
> She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to have
> completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
So, Mother Angelica doesn't have any superiors? hahahahaha.
Ok, dude, Whatever.
> > I think...nah...I know of NO such apology.
>
> I was watching it when it happened.
If she did, I sit corrected. I haven't seen it.
> > > But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the true
> > > Catholic doctrine like she is.
> >
> > Spun around and twisted the way she wants it, to develop a
> > cult-like following of mindless goons to throw out such
> > things as Vatican II, and whatever else doesn't feed the
> > beast she's created?
>
> Whuff...you're WAY out of line here... I'm not sure I enjoy being called a
> "mindless goon"...
and I don't enjoy being called a bad Catholic because I
think that Mother Angelica is completely out of line, and
should be censured for being a kook and teaching against
what the magesterium teaches because it suits her. While
these are the same people who sling around the term "buffet
catholic" no end, that's a topic for another day. I don't
follow anyone blindly, but there's a reason I call myself a
Roman Catholic, and if someone else calls themselves a
Catholic, and talks ill against the Church, he/she/it is
gonna get it. If Cardinal Mahoney were to talk against Rome
or what the Church teaches...don't you think that Ratzinger
or whoever would come down hard on him? Secondly, just
because someone is on TV doesn't make it right...but then
again, that's for another time.
> > BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
> > cloistered order?'
> First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically received
> dispensation for her media work.
See comment above on being Superior...
And BTW, if she doesn't have to be obedient to anyone, why
does she have to get permission/dispensation from ANYBODY to
do her TV show? ;)
Steve (Uhm, ok....) O.
janet
net>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>In article <xBDC0gBm...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <legatus-1207...@host-209-214-200-87.gsp.bellsouth.n
>> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>> >
>> >> obedience.
>> >
>> >She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to have
>> >completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
>> >
>>
>> Obedience is sworn not at all.
>>
>> It is VOWED to the Order and the church, in the PERSON of the Superior.
>> (These are nuns, second Order, yes?).
>
>pedant. :)
>
Hey, I'll let other stuff go, but when it comes to the Church... ;)
>> Mother A. has superiors over her, to whom she owes obedience.
>
>I THINK...her superiors are her local ordinary and the Pope...and God. I
>don't THINK PCPA's have "provincials"...and certainly NOT the LCWR or
>whatever they're calling themselves these days.
I didn't think the second order WERE under direct obedience to their
ordinary? (No, no, no, I don't mean that they IGNORE the poor man, but
rather that their lines of authority go other ways...). ?
But I would be willing to bet that the first Order has at least SOME
authority over the second...?
>
>> I am *not* saying she doesn't give it!! (The OFM's can sort out their
>> own, sheesh, we're still recovering from Fox....).
>
>Matthew or Mulder? :)...or Michael J.
Matthew.
Don't kick an Order when it's down.... ;}
Wish it HAD been Mulder, he's caused a lot less problems... sigh....
>
>> []
>> >mindless goon"...
>> >
>> >> BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
>> >> cloistered order?'
>> >
>> >First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically received
>> >dispensation for her media work.
>>
>> Even if she is the superior, she is still bound by the Rule.
>>
>> Well, she's bound by Clare's "notes"... grin... she never called them a
>> Rule in her lifetime, for reasons that will instantly jump to the fore,
>> if you think about what was going on at the time, (AND why it took
>> Francis longer to get his order approved than it took Dominic!!).
>
>Cathars.
Um, (grin) no....
Well, yes, but they bothered Francis and Dominic (nice of me to put them
in that order, isn't it?) ;) a lot more than they bothered Clare and
Diana, if you like... well, let me rephrase: they DIRECTLY bothered the
first orders more than the second...
>
>St. Clare "organized" during the year of the Children's Crusade didn't she?
Coudln't tell you...
>
>And I THOUGHT (oh just shoot me). That Francis was approved BEFORE the 4th
>Lateran....and that Dominic was after. I'm in the middle of "Innocent III"
>right now which is why that popped into my mind.
;PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP (SORRY! That relates to the cousinly rivalry
between the two orders....). ;)
No, no, no : Dominic: 1215 Francis: 1216
Dominic accepted the "no new Rules" bit and used Augie's
Francis argued for his own, and got it...
>
>> Superiors are not laws unto themselves.
>
>Neither are Cardinal Archbishops of Los Angeles (which is what started all
>this)
>
No one said he was!
Well, ok, someone probably did, but it weren't me...
Stephanie Rendino
>Legatus wrote:
>
>> This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often the
>> laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St. Francis
>> was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
>
>I don't see the connection here. St. Francis preaching Holy
>Poverty and Mother Angelica slagging Cardinal Mahoney are
>total non-comparisons. Please explain.
Steve, meet Steve. Steve, this is Steve. This is making me shake my head
because while Steve aka Legatus and I don't see things eye-to-eye all the
time (in more ways than one; I'm 4'11, he's 6/7) he's drop-dead hilarious
and one of the best things to hit these newsgroups in a dog's age. If
Steve learns to place nice with Steve we could all be in big trouble
because they both like to goof.
Legatus
> Legatus wrote:
>
> > This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often the
> > laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St. Francis
> > was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
>
> I don't see the connection here. St. Francis preaching Holy
> Poverty and Mother Angelica slagging Cardinal Mahoney are
> total non-comparisons. Please explain.
I'll do that in a followup to Janet...I've got a great line from St.
Anthony of Padua that I'm dying to use...(evil grin)
> > > Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
> > > obedience.
> >
> > She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to have
> > completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
>
> So, Mother Angelica doesn't have any superiors? hahahahaha.
> Ok, dude, Whatever.
I BELIEVE, she owes Catholic obedience to her own Bishop, and personal
obedience to SOMEONE (I no longer have even the foggiest idea WHO) in
Rome.
> > > I think...nah...I know of NO such apology.
> >
> > I was watching it when it happened.
>
> If she did, I sit corrected. I haven't seen it.
Not only was there the much ballyhooed "non-apology", there was an actual,
"I have a very big mouth, please kick me" statement soon after that.
> > > > But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the true
> > > > Catholic doctrine like she is.
> > >
> > > Spun around and twisted the way she wants it, to develop a
> > > cult-like following of mindless goons to throw out such
> > > things as Vatican II, and whatever else doesn't feed the
> > > beast she's created?
> >
> > Whuff...you're WAY out of line here... I'm not sure I enjoy being called a
> > "mindless goon"...
>
> and I don't enjoy being called a bad Catholic because I
> think that Mother Angelica is completely out of line, and
> should be censured for being a kook and teaching against
> what the magesterium teaches because it suits her.
I don't THINK, I've ever called you a "bad Catholic"...If I have..."I have
a very big mouth, please kick me".
> While
> these are the same people who sling around the term "buffet
> catholic" no end, that's a topic for another day. I don't
> follow anyone blindly, but there's a reason I call myself a
> Roman Catholic, and if someone else calls themselves a
> Catholic, and talks ill against the Church, he/she/it is
> gonna get it. If Cardinal Mahoney were to talk against Rome
> or what the Church teaches...don't you think that Ratzinger
> or whoever would come down hard on him?
Quick...WHO said "I'm NOT a branch office for the Pope"?
> Secondly, just
> because someone is on TV doesn't make it right...but then
> again, that's for another time.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the X-Files and Extra/Current
Affair/Jerry Springer aren't 100% truthful? Are you trying to suggest that
television isn't REAL!? OH, The arrogance! Hey, buddy, just who the heck
do you think you are!? Television is inspired of God! I'm stunned! Aren't
Jerry, Kramer, Elaine and George in Jail? And if Monica and Ross aren't
siblings, why don't they "do it"? Are you really trying to tell me Dan
Rather doesn't always tell me the truth? You "intulektoouls" really frost
my cake!
*Welcome to the funny farm, pick up a hoe at the desk* :)
> > > BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
> > > cloistered order?'
> > First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically received
> > dispensation for her media work.
>
> See comment above on being Superior...
>
> And BTW, if she doesn't have to be obedient to anyone, why
> does she have to get permission/dispensation from ANYBODY to
> do her TV show? ;)
I think it came from her bishop...
Legatus
> In article <35A99D43...@flash.net>, Steve O. <cast...@flash.net> wrote:
> >Legatus wrote:
> >
> >> This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often the
> >> laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St. Francis
> >> was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
> >
> >I don't see the connection here. St. Francis preaching Holy
> >Poverty and Mother Angelica slagging Cardinal Mahoney are
> >total non-comparisons. Please explain.
>
> Steve, meet Steve. Steve, this is Steve. This is making me shake my head
> because while Steve aka Legatus and I don't see things eye-to-eye all the
> time (in more ways than one; I'm 4'11, he's 6/7) he's drop-dead hilarious
> and one of the best things to hit these newsgroups in a dog's age. If
> Steve learns to place nice with Steve we could all be in big trouble
> because they both like to goof.
Oh well, then in THAT case. Get him in contact with KJ (moohahahahaha).
; ; nudge nudge
Legatus
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <legatus-1207...@host-209-214-200-173.gsp.bellsouth.
> net>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
> >In article <xBDC0gBm...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
> ><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <legatus-1207...@host-209-214-200-87.gsp.bellsouth.n
> >> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
> >pedant. :)
> Hey, I'll let other stuff go, but when it comes to the Church... ;)
> I didn't think the second order WERE under direct obedience to their
> ordinary? (No, no, no, I don't mean that they IGNORE the poor man, but
> rather that their lines of authority go other ways...). ?
>
> But I would be willing to bet that the first Order has at least SOME
> authority over the second...?
Someone remind me what a "papal enclosure" is (and the first person to say
"cloistered" gets flibbitz.
> >> Well, she's bound by Clare's "notes"... grin... she never called them a
> >> Rule in her lifetime, for reasons that will instantly jump to the fore,
> >> if you think about what was going on at the time, (AND why it took
> >> Francis longer to get his order approved than it took Dominic!!).
>
> >Cathars.
>
> Um, (grin) no....
Alright, Albigensians then. :)
> Well, yes, but they bothered Francis and Dominic (nice of me to put them
> in that order, isn't it?) ;) a lot more than they bothered Clare and
> Diana, if you like... well, let me rephrase: they DIRECTLY bothered the
> first orders more than the second...
ACTUALLY...they DIRECTLY bothered Simon de Montfort...in the head...with a rock.
> >> Superiors are not laws unto themselves.
>
> >Neither are Cardinal Archbishops of Los Angeles (which is what started all
> >this)
>
> No one said he was!
>
> Well, ok, someone probably did, but it weren't me...
Which reminded me of St. Anthony of Padua at the Council of Bourges (1225)
"You there, with the mitre! (A line I would LOVE to be able to use...wait,
where's that "annulments made easy" guy?) To you I address myself...for
certain misdeeds that lie heavy upon your conscience."
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) wrote:
> In article <6o6ggm$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, "Rocco Palmo"
> <rpa...@geocities.com> wrote:
[Regarding Mother Angelica] (btw, now that my oldest daughter has taken a
shine to "RugRats" on Nickelodeon, I'll never view the name "Angelica" in the
same way again. It's just *too* easy to infer a resemblance between the two
(the one on EWTN and the one on Nick - not my daughter, whose name is not
Angelica, although on some days ...)]
> > She has aquired a
> > false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of the
> > NCCB.
>
> Actually, she has aquired a TRUE sense of power...which is why some of the
> bishops are running in circles trying to figure out what to do about her.
Some. Not all. Probably not even most.
> Do you not realize the propaganda machine they would have at their
> disposal if they could reconcile with her? They could change the face of
> Catholicism worldwide! Therein lies the danger to the looney left...if the
> Bishops conference were to get together with her (and they could make it
> last for more than 6 months), they'd be unstoppable. With the Bishops
> behind her, she'd be on every cable system in the nation, with her working
> with the Bishops, THEY'D get more coverage than they'd know how to use.
> The potential is astronomical.
Well ... for starters, can we find a better word for "propaganda"? How about
"evangelizing"?
As you (probably) know, I'm not her biggest fan. She does a terrific job
reaching her audience (and she truly has some wonderful things on her
station, on her web site, probably on her ham radio broadcasts, and so on).
But ... it reaches the segment who is inclined to watch religious
programming. They're part of the church, and a segment who, I suspect, was
feeling a bit dispirited before she hit the air-waves (or would that be
cable-bursts?). She's been wonderful for the morale of the (relatively) few
who watch her. But most Catholics don't watch. I'd guess that most in the
U.S. have never heard of her. And many others (like me) would rather watch
the Bulls or the Simpsons. She's probably a bigger blip on radar screens in
Wash. D.C. and Rome than she is in Muncie or Peoria.
I hardly ever watch, but it seems that every time I flip over there, I see
(1) a cardinal celebrating mass; or (2) an un-telegenic priest exhorting
about something-or-other; or (3) a gaggle of bishops looking plump and
serious about something (perhaps lauds should be followed by a half-hour
exercise program). Iow, it's collars and croziers from one end of the screen
to the other. I think if we dusted for fingerprints on her set, plenty of
Excellencies and Eminences would be brought in for questioning. The rift
between Mother and this amorphous body called "the bishops" seems a little
over-stated.
As for Mother and the NCCB being on the same page ... I don't really want it
to happen. There's nothing like a bit of Fourth Estate to keep the gentry in
line.
I worry more about the uncritical acceptance of anything that emanates from
Irondale, than I do about Mother herself.
> > It is not an official teacher of the Magisterium of the Church and is
> > not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated network that
> > presents its spin of things.
>
> Recently, it has been pointed out to me that as Mother Angelica is a
> "Superior of Women" operating under the jurisdiction of her Bishop....she
> IS an "official teacher"...with an incredibly wide scope.
>
> I'm not even going to touch the whole miracle issue...Card Mahoney's
> canonical complaint has been canned by the Curia (half of whom have
> appeared on EWTN). Card. Mahoney is in more danger of getting the boot
> than MA is these days.
Was it officially "canned"? I hadn't heard anything about it. I thought it
was probably just collecting dust somewhere in the Eternal City.
Because she is a populist, she has a grave journalistic and catechetical
responsibility. I thought she suffered a lapse during the Mahony incident.
But, as you say, she apologized. It's time to move on. I wonder if it had
any sort of chilling effect on her or her programming?
Jim
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Legatus
> Because she is a populist, she has a grave journalistic and catechetical
> responsibility. I thought she suffered a lapse during the Mahony incident.
> But, as you say, she apologized. It's time to move on. I wonder if it had
> any sort of chilling effect on her or her programming?
The apology or the original bruhaha? I think the "healing miracle" pretty
much took over all the publicity...
I remember watching "Life on the Rock" (which isn't normal, because I
don't particularly care for it...surprised?) the night the host started
out talking about Mother Angelica in the past tense...I yelled to my wife
across the house "Get in here, Mother Angelica's dead!"...the she just
sorta hopped up on the stage...they didn't talk about much else for quite
some time...and neither did we.
Legatus
al...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> Steve O, taliking to Edward Thorne, said:
>
> >> First of all, Ed, by saying that you'd support Mother
> >> Angelica over a bishop/Cardinal is really dangerously
> >> cultish. After all, we are supposed to be loyal to ROME, and
> >> by a LAY PERSON talking smack on a Cardinal and his
> >> teachings is cause for her to be labeled a crackpot. Now
> >> mind you, I disagree with a LOT of what the Church says, but
> >> I am obedient, even though I haven't taken a vow, which I am
> >> sure she did. She has no right, whether or not her Ordinary
> >> supports her, to talk smack on ANYONE with a hint of
> >> authority on the Church, whatever her disagrement is about.
>
> To which Steve, aka Legatus said:
>
> >This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often the
> >laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St. Francis
> >was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
>
> But ... sputter ... Deacons are *Ordained* ... that makes them... gasp
> ... part of the Hierarchy!? Unless I'm mistaken, Deacons are not
> laity. (could be, I suppose ... mistaken, that is)
You are of course, correct. However a Deacon is both lay and cleric...and
neither. So, while a Deacon is a cleric...he is a layman. But, he is also
not a cleric or a layman.
--
Steve
"You there, with the mitre! To you I address myself..."
St Anthony of Padua, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us.
*Email address spamtected: "bellsouth.net"
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) wrote:
> In article <6odmk0$8p0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>
> > Because she is a populist, she has a grave journalistic and catechetical
> > responsibility. I thought she suffered a lapse during the Mahony incident.
> > But, as you say, she apologized. It's time to move on. I wonder if it had
> > any sort of chilling effect on her or her programming?
>
> The apology or the original bruhaha? I think the "healing miracle" pretty
> much took over all the publicity...
>
> I remember watching "Life on the Rock" (which isn't normal, because I
> don't particularly care for it...surprised?) the night the host started
> out talking about Mother Angelica in the past tense...I yelled to my wife
> across the house "Get in here, Mother Angelica's dead!"...the she just
> sorta hopped up on the stage...they didn't talk about much else for quite
> some time...and neither did we.
I haven't heard much about the "miracle" (I know, me of little faith ...). I
heard about the episode you relate here. Not much since. I'm kind of
surprised, because usually my mom is *very* tuned into that sort of thing (we
could get into my deep psychological reasons for being skeptical about
apparitions and miracles :-)). I guess by now, if you've heard about it, you
either believe it happened, or you don't. Personally, I think it's eminently
investigable (if that's a word) by the church, but I don't know if that will
happen. I read on one forum that Mother was refusing to cooperate with
anyone who wanted to certify the miracle, but I don't know if that's true or
not.
As for "Life On The Rock" - I've only seen it once, for five or ten minutes.
I don't know much about it, but get the impression that the show, or at least
the episode I watched, was aimed at young adults or teens. The show I
watched was about choosing colleges. It had some pretty appealing young
college students on it - one, in response to a phone-in question, began by
saying, "Well, I've done some fairly bone-headed things in my life ..." -
something I can *definitely* relate to :-). But then the host (a bearded
fellow) exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the number-one
criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some distinctly bad
advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
Legatus
> In article <legatus-1307...@host-209-214-200-67.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) wrote:
> > I remember watching "Life on the Rock" (which isn't normal, because I
> > don't particularly care for it...surprised?) the night the host started
> > out talking about Mother Angelica in the past tense...I yelled to my wife
> > across the house "Get in here, Mother Angelica's dead!"...the she just
> > sorta hopped up on the stage...they didn't talk about much else for quite
> > some time...and neither did we.
>
> I haven't heard much about the "miracle" (I know, me of little faith ...). I
> heard about the episode you relate here. Not much since. I'm kind of
> surprised, because usually my mom is *very* tuned into that sort of thing (we
> could get into my deep psychological reasons for being skeptical about
> apparitions and miracles :-)). I guess by now, if you've heard about it, you
> either believe it happened, or you don't. Personally, I think it's eminently
> investigable (if that's a word) by the church, but I don't know if that will
> happen. I read on one forum that Mother was refusing to cooperate with
> anyone who wanted to certify the miracle, but I don't know if that's true or
> not.
From what I understand (from the very beginning of this whole affair), she
immediately said (because someone asked her on the air about the process
of getting the "miracle" investigated)...something along the lines of
"kiss my butt, this isn't about me...and who cares what xrays might show"
or words to that effect. Which either seems like an emminently sensible
response or evasion depending on your prior opinions. She isn't trying to
pass this off as anything other than something that makes it easier to do
her job...and a possible sign to keep hoping...NOT as an approval from on
high.
> As for "Life On The Rock" - I've only seen it once, for five or ten minutes.
> I don't know much about it, but get the impression that the show, or at least
> the episode I watched, was aimed at young adults or teens. The show I
> watched was about choosing colleges. It had some pretty appealing young
> college students on it - one, in response to a phone-in question, began by
> saying, "Well, I've done some fairly bone-headed things in my life ..." -
> something I can *definitely* relate to :-). But then the host (a bearded
> fellow) exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the number-one
> criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some distinctly bad
> advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
Can't stand the show for the most part and the host usually annoys me.
But, as you might expect, I think it was great advice...which should sort
of confirm your preconceptions about ME. :)
For the most part, the show appears to be divided pretty much between
Franciscan University and Christendom College adherents. Both of which
provide an excellent academic program and each has its own spirituality.
There aren't that many other institutions I'd be willing to throw money
at...although there are some.
Legatus
al...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) wrote:
>
> >In article <35aaa374...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
> >al...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> >
> >> But ... sputter ... Deacons are *Ordained* ... that makes them... gasp
> >> ... part of the Hierarchy!? Unless I'm mistaken, Deacons are not
> >> laity. (could be, I suppose ... mistaken, that is)
> >
> >You are of course, correct.
>
> (correct that I'm mistaken? :) )
>
> >However a Deacon is both lay and cleric...and
> >neither.
>
> Perhaps in the practice of some (and their dioces'). However in
> reality, with the laying on of hands...Ordination, don't you know....
You realize of course that my canned response to this kind of thing is "AUGH!"?
The permanent Deacon is the "platypus" of the Church. Both cleric (use of
that term in this example indicates those with Holy Orders) and layman,
and at the same time, neither.
BTW, just to add a bit of additional weirdness. The plural of Diocese is
Dioceses (pronounced Dio-seizes). The more you are talking about, the more
'es' you should add to the end...So, 3 would be Dioceseseses, etc. If
you're also referring to Rome...it's the "Holy See-zures".
Please disregard that last bit, I'm getting hungry.
Steve O.
> >> gave me"
> >
> >Is that a quote from Mother Angelica? ;)
>
>
> ROFL!!!
>
> ROFL!!!
>
> You have displayed your true colors indeed, by running them up the mast
> of ignorance!!!
>
> ROFL!
>
> ROFL!
>
> ROFL!
>
> That is a quotation is from the Psalms.
>
> YOu should know half as much scripture as your martyred patron saint!!!
Easy, Eddie, my brother...look at the ;) <-- read winky
smile at the end of my question. This is to insinuate, nay,
CLARIFY, that I was telling a joke... so take a long deep
breath, and relax before you next foam at the mouth.
> >BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
> >cloistered order?'
>
> Yes, it is. We have a Poor Clare monastery here in our diocese.>
So, What's she doing in front of a national TV network?
Steve (Calling a spade a spade, instead of using the club)
O.
Edward Thorne
writes:
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>>
>> In <6o6ggm$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> "Rocco Palmo"
<rpa...@geocities.com>
>> writes:
>> >
>> >My faith in EWTN was lost after Mother Angelica slandered a
Cardinal
>> of the
aquired
>> a
>> >false sense of power and EWTN should be subjected to the control of
>> the
Church
>> and is
>> >not to be accepted as such, just a privately owned and operated
>> network that
>>
>> quarrel between Mr Angelica and some bishop someplace, and I don't
know
>> what either side of the quarrel is about, and if a gunman came up to
me
>> and said, "Pick sides in the quarrel or your life!", I would pick Mr
>> Angelica.
>
>Before I lay the smack down about this topic, Lemme preface
>this by saying that even though Mahoney is from my area,
>what I have to say has NOTHING to do with that.
>
>Angelica over a bishop/Cardinal is really dangerously
>cultish.
Why? If the Cardinal errs, is he not above reproach? Must we follow
the Cardinal blindly?
After all, we are supposed to be loyal to ROME, and
>by a LAY PERSON talking smack on a Cardinal and his
>teachings is cause for her to be labeled a crackpot.
But the question that should be asked is this: Is the Cardinal loyal
to Rome?
Now
>mind you, I disagree with a LOT of what the Church says,
Why do you disagree with the church on anything?
BTW, on what points do you and the church disagree?
but
>I am obedient, even though I haven't taken a vow, which I am
>sure she did. She has no right, whether or not her Ordinary
>supports her, to talk smack on ANYONE with a hint of
>authority on the Church, whatever her disagrement is about.
Well, if anyone in authority in the church teaches false doctrine, he
is go unchallenged? What kind of Catholicism is that?
>
>Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
>obedience.
>
>> Now, she may have gone off the deep end in what she said about Card
>> Mahony, but I think that she apologized for it.
>
>I think...nah...I know of NO such apology.
Well, there is one. The fact that you don't know of it does not render
it non-existent.
>
>> But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the true
>> Catholic doctrine like she is.
>
>Spun around and twisted the way she wants it, to develop a
>cult-like following of mindless goons to throw out such
>things as Vatican II, and whatever else doesn't feed the
>beast she's created?
Ahh. Steve's true colors begin to emerge.
So, those who follow the teachings of the church are to be compared to
mindless goons.
>
>Chastity, Obedience, and Poverty.
>
>
>> "Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
>> gave me"
>
>Is that a quote from Mother Angelica? ;)
ROFL!!!
ROFL!!!
ROFL!!!
You have displayed your true colors indeed, by running them up the mast
of ignorance!!!
ROFL!
ROFL!
ROFL!
That is a quotation is from the Psalms.
YOu should know half as much scripture as your martyred patron saint!!!
>
>BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
>cloistered order?'
Yes, it is. We have a Poor Clare monastery here in our diocese.>
>
Edward Thorne
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
[snip]
Now
>> mind you, I disagree with a LOT of what the Church says, but
>> I am obedient, even though I haven't taken a vow, which I am
>> sure she did. She has no right, whether or not her Ordinary
>> supports her, to talk smack on ANYONE with a hint of
>> authority on the Church, whatever her disagrement is about.
>
>This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often
the
>laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St.
Francis
>was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
And, of course, there is St Catherine of Siena.
>
>> Remember folks...she took vows of chastity, poverty, and
>> obedience.
>
>She is a Superior...she's the one obedience is sworn to. We seem to
have
>completely lost focus on Monastic reform...
It only works if those who like it declare it to be in accordance with
the 'spirit of Vat II'.
>
>> > Now, she may have gone off the deep end in what she said about
Card
>> > Mahony, but I think that she apologized for it.
>>
>> I think...nah...I know of NO such apology.
>
>I was watching it when it happened.
Hey! Great! Thanks for the backup!
There are 3 things that I have missed in this life: they are:
o Mr Angelica's criticism of Bp Weakland.
o Mr Angelica's criticism of Card Abp Mahony' letter
o Mr Angelica's apology to Card Abp Mahony
Oh, well! I will have to wait to get to heaven to see the re-runs.
>
>> > But there is no one out there anywhere, who is presenting the
true
>> > Catholic doctrine like she is.
>>
>> Spun around and twisted the way she wants it, to develop a
>> cult-like following of mindless goons to throw out such
>> things as Vatican II, and whatever else doesn't feed the
>> beast she's created?
>
>Whuff...you're WAY out of line here... I'm not sure I enjoy being
called a
>"mindless goon"...
Well, do you think that the rest of us enjoy being called "mindless
goons"?
>
>> BTW, Isn't Mother Angelica a Poor Clare? Isn't that a
>> cloistered order?'
>
>First, she's the frickin' SUPERIOR!...secondly, she specifically
received
>dispensation for her media work.
Ah well, the facts don't matter to some people as long as they can get
their innuendos in.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
Edward Thorne
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
>
>In article <35A99D43...@flash.net>, "Steve O."
<cast...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>> Legatus wrote:
[snip]
>> While
>> these are the same people who sling around the term "buffet
>> catholic" no end, that's a topic for another day. I don't
>> follow anyone blindly, but there's a reason I call myself a
>> Roman Catholic, and if someone else calls themselves a
>> Catholic, and talks ill against the Church, he/she/it is
>> gonna get it. If Cardinal Mahoney were to talk against Rome
>> or what the Church teaches...don't you think that Ratzinger
>> or whoever would come down hard on him?
>
>Quick...WHO said "I'm NOT a branch office for the Pope"?
Why, that was none other than that
dear-devoted-loyal-to-the-magisterium of the Catholic church bishop of
Rochester Matthew Clark --the bishop who would like to see a church
blessing for sodomite unions.
>
In all this discussion the obedience of Mr Angelica, we have missed the
purport of what Msgr Clarke said, to wit: dissenters want nothing more
than the secularization of the church.
That is a pretty damning accusation.
Edward Thorne
>
[snip]
>I hardly ever watch, but it seems that every time I flip over there, I
see
>(1) a cardinal celebrating mass; or (2) an un-telegenic priest
exhorting
>about something-or-other;
Like who? I don't think that I have ever seen a priest in her show who
was untelegenic.
[snip]
>
>Because she is a populist, she has a grave journalistic and
catechetical
>responsibility. I thought she suffered a lapse during the Mahony
incident.
>But, as you say, she apologized. It's time to move on. I wonder if
it had
>any sort of chilling effect on her or her programming?
>
>Jim
I don't think so because Msgr Clarke, who is from New York, not at all
untelegenic, was very trenchant is some of his criticisms, saying that
dissenters want to secularize the church.
Edward Thorne
>
[snip]
>As for "Life On The Rock" - I've only seen it once, for five or ten
minutes.
>I don't know much about it, but get the impression that the show, or
at least
>the episode I watched, was aimed at young adults or teens. The show I
>watched was about choosing colleges. It had some pretty appealing
young
>college students on it - one, in response to a phone-in question,
began by
>saying, "Well, I've done some fairly bone-headed things in my life
..." -
>something I can *definitely* relate to :-). But then the host (a
bearded
>fellow)
> exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the number-one
>criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some distinctly
bad
>advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
>
Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
the pope "distincly bad advice"?
Should one go to a Catholic college that is trying to remake the church
into the image the professors want?
SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
Christ's body and blood? etc etc
I am truly amazed!
It loooks like Abp George has his work cut out for him. He cannot
knuckle under to the modernists who want to secularize the church.
Edward Thorne
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
>
>In article <6og0b7$v2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
[snip]
>Can't stand the show for the most part and the host usually annoys me.
>But, as you might expect, I think it was great advice...which should
sort
>of confirm your preconceptions about ME. :)
Well, that host is Scott Hahn, a well known convert to Catholicism, who
was a Protestant minister before he converted.
[snip]
Legatus
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
> In <legatus-1407...@host-209-214-200-44.gsp.bellsouth.net>
> leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
> >
> >In article <6og0b7$v2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >> As for "Life On The Rock" -
>
> [snip]
>
> >Can't stand the show for the most part and the host usually annoys me.
> >But, as you might expect, I think it was great advice...which should
> sort
> >of confirm your preconceptions about ME. :)
>
> Well, that host is Scott Hahn, a well known convert to Catholicism, who
> was a Protestant minister before he converted.
No...the host of "Life on the Rock" is Jeff Cavins. A not so well known
revert to Catholicism who did a stint as a protestant minister before he
returned to the Church of his youth.
And I don't particularly like him...too much like Bob Saggett when he was
on America's Funniest Home Videos.
Stephanie Rendino
Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>minutes.
>>I don't know much about it, but get the impression that the show, or
>at least
>>the episode I watched, was aimed at young adults or teens. The show I
>>watched was about choosing colleges. It had some pretty appealing
>young
>>college students on it - one, in response to a phone-in question,
>began by
>>saying, "Well, I've done some fairly bone-headed things in my life
>..." -
>>something I can *definitely* relate to :-). But then the host (a
>bearded
>>fellow)
>> exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the number-one
>>criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some distinctly
>bad
>>advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
>>
>
>Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
>the pope "distincly bad advice"?
What if you're looking for an engineering degree?
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
> In <6og0b7$v2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >As for "Life On The Rock" - I've only seen it once, for five or ten
> minutes.
> >I don't know much about it, but get the impression that the show, or
> at least
> >the episode I watched, was aimed at young adults or teens. The show I
> >watched was about choosing colleges. It had some pretty appealing
> young
> >college students on it - one, in response to a phone-in question,
> began by
> >saying, "Well, I've done some fairly bone-headed things in my life
> ..." -
> >something I can *definitely* relate to :-). But then the host (a
> bearded
> >fellow)
> > exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the number-one
> >criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some distinctly
> bad
> >advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
> >
>
> Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
> the pope "distincly bad advice"?
You'd have to ask someone who made the claim. Note that I said, "to use
'loyalty to the Pope' as the *number-one criterion* for choosing a college.
I thought that was some distinctly bad advice.". Did you catch the
"number-one criterion" part?
I think loyalty to the Pope is a fine criterion for picking a college. It
might not make my top 10 list of criteria, but it's okay.
As it happens, I don't know of any Catholic schools that *aren't* loyal to
the Pope, so it doesn't seem like a very useful criterion if one is trying to
narrow down the choices.
Why I thought it was bad advice, is because I think being loyal to the pope
is a very poor reason to go to college. I think I could do it without going
to college - in fact, many of our brothers and sisters manage just fine. I
suppose it depends on one's goals. Personally, I went to college to become a
better-educated person and a more well-rounded human being. Also to gain
some employable skills. It strikes me as possible that a school could excel
in their loyalty to the pope, and yet suck at everything else. I don't know
of any, but there could be some - who knows?
<snip rant>
> I am truly amazed!
Why aren't you ever agog or aghast? :-)
> It loooks like Abp George has his work cut out for him. He cannot
> knuckle under to the modernists who want to secularize the church.
That's *Cardinal* George to you, pal :-).
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
> In <6odmk0$8p0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
> >I hardly ever watch, but it seems that every time I flip over there, I
> see
> >(1) a cardinal celebrating mass; or (2) an un-telegenic priest
> exhorting
> >about something-or-other;
>
> Like who? I don't think that I have ever seen a priest in her show who
> was untelegenic.
Oh, for goodness' sake, Ed ... are you now claiming that all the priests on
EWTN are evening news talking-head material? Puh-lease! Some of those guys
... well, we'll dispense with the "I-can-see-why-they-went-to-seminary"
wisecracks, but suffice it to say, Katie Couric they ain't.
Legatus
> In article <6oh9ub$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
> >the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>
> What if you're looking for an engineering degree?
Is there no college/university, offering a decent degree in engineering,
that maintains loyalty to the Holy Father?
I knew we were screwed, I just didn't realize it was that bad.
janet
>
>The permanent Deacon is the "platypus" of the Church. Both cleric (use of
>that term in this example indicates those with Holy Orders) and layman,
>and at the same time, neither.
Grin... and I STILL say that "permament deacon" is a redundant phrase!
What we SHOULD be talking about are deacons, and transitory deacons.
The permanent ones are the ones carrying on from the earliest roots!
>
>BTW, just to add a bit of additional weirdness. The plural of Diocese is
>Dioceses (pronounced Dio-seizes). The more you are talking about, the more
>'es' you should add to the end...So, 3 would be Dioceseseses, etc. If
>you're also referring to Rome...it's the "Holy See-zures".
>
I used to have a teacher who talked about Moses and the Red Sea or the
Reed Sea or the Holy See...
But then, he talked about Hermeutics and Herman Gunkle...
>Please disregard that last bit, I'm getting hungry.
>
Here, have a cyber cookie... :)
>--
janet
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often
>the
>>laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St.
>Francis
>>was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
>
>And, of course, there is St Catherine of Siena.
Who is reported to have told a pope, about the cardinals around him:
"You are a sweetsmelling flower, in a garden of foul weeds".
Guts, the woman had GUTS! ;)
janet
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>
>
>Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
>the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>
Because it says nothing about the quality of teaching in other areas.
If I were directing someone who wanted to do theology, I would use that
criterion.
Maths? No.
(I wouldn't direct ANYONE looking for maths, but I know people who know
about such things...).
>Should one go to a Catholic college that is trying to remake the church
>into the image the professors want?
>
Professors, most unfortunately, don't tend to have all that much contact
with students, in some areas and disciplines.
What is important is the competence in one's AREA.
If I am looking to do literary studies, I need someone who is not only
competent in that area, but can TEACH.
Not someone with a wonderful research record, and no more sense of how
to teach than your average doormouse.
Call me reactionary.
>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
Hello?
Ed? Colleges are not there to teach morality.
When you take a course on morality, *then* you discuss it.
But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have the
responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
No, I don't disregard the souls of my students. But I don't have
complete responsibility for them, either.
My colleagues who teach music, teach music. NOT theology.
When I'm teaching sociology, that's what I'm teaching. My students know
where I'm coming from, but that's it...
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>In article <6oiemr$c...@stratus.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>
>> Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
>> >the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>>
>
>Is there no college/university, offering a decent degree in engineering,
>that maintains loyalty to the Holy Father?
You're assuming engineering schools are Catholic! MIT is a state school.
UCLA is a state school. L'Ecole Polytechnique is a state school. The
Catholic schools tend to be liberal arts, not to mention private.
Steve O.
What about Loyola Marymount here in Los Angeles. While they are
Jesuit, they have a hell of a bioresearch/medical dept. as well as a
top-notch architecture.
Edward Thorne
writes:
>> >> "Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience
you
>> >> gave me"
>> >
>>
>> ROFL!!!
>>
>> ROFL!!!
>>
>> ROFL!!!
>>
>> You have displayed your true colors indeed, by running them up the
mast
>> of ignorance!!!
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> That is a quotation is from the Psalms.
>>
>> YOu should know half as much scripture as your martyred patron
saint!!!
>
>smile at the end of my question. This is to insinuate, nay,
>CLARIFY, that I was telling a joke... so take a long deep
>breath, and relax before you next foam at the mouth.
Well, I am sorry, I couldn't tell.
There are times when some one is so wry when he is telling a joke that
his listeners don't realize it. That may have been the case here.
Edward Thorne
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
>
>In article <6oha61$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
>> In <legatus-1407...@host-209-214-200-44.gsp.bellsouth.net>
>> leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
>> >
>> >In article <6og0b7$v2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> As for "Life On The Rock" -
>>
>>
>> >Can't stand the show for the most part and the host usually annoys
me.
>> >But, as you might expect, I think it was great advice...which
should
>> sort
>> >of confirm your preconceptions about ME. :)
>>
>> Well, that host is Scott Hahn, a well known convert to Catholicism,
who
>> was a Protestant minister before he converted.
>
>No...the host of "Life on the Rock" is Jeff Cavins. A not so well
known
>revert to Catholicism who did a stint as a protestant minister before
he
>returned to the Church of his youth.
>
>And I don't particularly like him...too much like Bob Saggett when he
was
>on America's Funniest Home Videos.
Okay, but Scott Hahn is on often ..he is pretty good.
BTW, isn't revert a rather harsh word? This is the 1st time I have
seen it used so, and it has a bad ring to it.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
>
Edward Thorne
writes:
>>In <6og0b7$v2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com
writes:
>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>As for "Life On The Rock" - I've only seen it once, for five or ten
>>minutes.
>>>I don't know much about it, but get the impression that the show, or
>>at least
>>>the episode I watched, was aimed at young adults or teens. The show
I
>>>watched was about choosing colleges. It had some pretty appealing
>>young
>>>college students on it - one, in response to a phone-in question,
>>began by
>>>saying, "Well, I've done some fairly bone-headed things in my life
>>..." -
>>>something I can *definitely* relate to :-). But then the host (a
>>bearded
>>>fellow)
>>> exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the number-one
>>>criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some
distinctly
>>bad
>>>advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
>>>
>>
>>the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>
>What if you're looking for an engineering degree?
>
>
Here's a thought ...go to a magisterium-loyal Catholic college for the
1st two years, and then go and study engineering. It might take 5
years, but about half the kids nowadays take that long to finish.
Edward Thorne
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <6oh2lm$o...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>>This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often
>>the
>>>laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St.
>>Francis
>>>was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
>>
>>And, of course, there is St Catherine of Siena.
>
>Who is reported to have told a pope, about the cardinals around him:
>
>"You are a sweetsmelling flower, in a garden of foul weeds".
>
>Guts, the woman had GUTS! ;)
But, she must have felt a lot of pain, because I have no doubt
whatsoever that she wanted to be a priest, so she could be a bishop,
then a cardinal, and then a pope.
Ahhh, but it was to be. Since she was powerless, all she could do was
yell at the pope. :-)
Actaully, she was a loyal Catholic. The nuns told us about her in the
6th grade.
Edward Thorne
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <6oh9ub$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>
>>
>>Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
>>the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>>
>
>
>If I were directing someone who wanted to do theology, I would use
that
>criterion.
>
>Maths? No.
>
>(I wouldn't direct ANYONE looking for maths, but I know people who
know
>about such things...).
I don't look for maths, I use math balls to get rid of them.:-)
>
>>Should one go to a Catholic college that is trying to remake the
church
>>into the image the professors want?
>>
>Professors, most unfortunately, don't tend to have all that much
contact
>with students, in some areas and disciplines.
>
>What is important is the competence in one's AREA.
Ahh, what would it profit a man if he were to gain the whole world and
lose his immortal soul?
>
>If I am looking to do literary studies, I need someone who is not only
>competent in that area, but can TEACH.
>
>Not someone with a wonderful research record, and no more sense of how
>to teach than your average doormouse.
>
>Call me reactionary.
>
>
>
>
>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>
>
>Hello?
>
>Ed? Colleges are not there to teach morality.
A Catholic college is not there to teach morality? Shall I tell you
that I am gasping for air, my face is turning blue, my simian myriads
are looking at me in astonishment, that ...that ...that ...I am
speechless?
Well, almost, thankfully.
I am rapidly recovering.
Indeed, I am fully recovered.
The business of a college is to teach the truth. One thing that I have
had on my reading agenda for several decades is to read Newman's idea
of a university.
So, a Catholic college is not to teach morality? What is its purpose
then? To teach immorality, amorality, moral relativism, situation
ethics, religious indifferentism, a kind of watered down Catholicism
that is really a secularized Catholicism, a religion that conforms so
closely to the mores of the world as to be indistinguishable from them?
>
>When you take a course on morality, *then* you discuss it.
Ethics is not a topic merely for discussion. One lives his ethics.
>
>But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have the
>responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
Oh oh! Here we go again!
Shall I respond, or let that vapid remark drift on by like the vacuous
fog that it really is.
>
>No, I don't disregard the souls of my students. But I don't have
>complete responsibility for them, either.
But at a Catholic college, the college does, in a way. Its purpose is
to prepare the "little skulls filled with mush" for life in the world
as Catholics, and to make a competent living.
Edward Thorne
leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus) writes:
>
>In article <6oiemr$c...@stratus.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie
Rendino) wrote:
>
>> Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal
to
>> >the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>>
>
engineering,
>that maintains loyalty to the Holy Father?
>
>
By that he meant, I suppose, that many Catholic colleges would rather
declare themselves secular than to come under the authority of, and be
responsive to, the bishop.
And of course, our bishops, most of them pusillanimous patsies, have
not really implemented the papal document on bringing Catholic colleges
under control, the philosophy and theology departments, --is it called
Ex Corde Ecclesia?
The only schools that are really Catholic that I know of are Xtendom,
St Francis, Thomas Aquinas in Calif, and U of Dallas. I frankly don't
know of others.
Maybe St John's in NY?
Edward Thorne
>
>In article <6oh6n1$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>> In <6odmk0$8p0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com
writes:
>
>> >I hardly ever watch, but it seems that every time I flip over
there, I
>> see
>> >(1) a cardinal celebrating mass; or (2) an un-telegenic priest
>> exhorting
>> >about something-or-other;
>>
>> Like who? I don't think that I have ever seen a priest in her show
who
>> was untelegenic.
>
>Oh, for goodness' sake, Ed ... are you now claiming that all the
priests on
>EWTN are evening news talking-head material? Puh-lease! Some of
those guys
>... well, we'll dispense with the
"I-can-see-why-they-went-to-seminary"
>wisecracks, but suffice it to say, Katie Couric they ain't.
Well, they'd better not be!
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
>
Edward Thorne
>
>In article <6oh9ub$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>> In <6og0b7$v2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com
writes:
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
[snip]
But then the host (a
>> bearded
>> >fellow)
>> > exhorted the viewers to use "loyalty to the Pope" as the
number-one
>> >criterion for choosing a college. I thought that was some
distinctly
>> bad
>> >advice. But it did sort of confirm my preconceptions about EWTN.
>> >
>>
>> Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal
to
>> the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>
>You'd have to ask someone who made the claim. Note that I said, "to
use
>'loyalty to the Pope' as the *number-one criterion* for choosing a
college.
>I thought that was some distinctly bad advice.". Did you catch the
>"number-one criterion" part?
I think that you think that you are being very subtle [:-)], but you
have made a distinction without a difference.
>
>I think loyalty to the Pope is a fine criterion for picking a
college. It
>might not make my top 10 list of criteria, but it's okay.
Perhaps you might consider the record of the football team, or
basketball team as better criteria?
>
>As it happens, I don't know of any Catholic schools that *aren't*
loyal to
>the Pope, so it doesn't seem like a very useful criterion if one is
trying to
>narrow down the choices.
Let's see, colleges not loyal to the pope....
1st there's BC, St Bonnie's, Georgetown, De Paul, Fordham,
Loyola-Marymount, etc....hey I can't name them all. there's too many,
their name is legion!
>
>Why I thought it was bad advice, is because I think being loyal to the
pope
>is a very poor reason to go to college.
...if one is going to go to college, that is.
But in the old days, finding a Catholic college that was loyal to the
pope was no problem. Today, roman collars on the professors, a few,
crucifixes in the classrooms, maybe, and a tradition of having in the
past been associated with the Catholic church are no guarantees that
one will get the correct skinny in philosophy and theology.
I think I could do it without going
>to college - in fact, many of our brothers and sisters manage just
fine. I
>suppose it depends on one's goals. Personally, I went to college to
become a
>better-educated person and a more well-rounded human being. Also to
gain
>some employable skills. It strikes me as possible that a school could
excel
>in their loyalty to the pope, and yet suck at everything else. I
don't know
>of any, but there could be some - who knows?
...well, I was presupposing that all things being equal ...
>
><snip rant>
>
>> I am truly amazed!
>
>Why aren't you ever agog or aghast? :-)
I have never been agog, but I think that I might become aghast. :-)
>
>> It loooks like Abp George has his work cut out for him. He cannot
>> knuckle under to the modernists who want to secularize the church.
>
>That's *Cardinal* George to you, pal :-).
Hey, I can't keep up with all the news you know. It is bad enough
trying to find out how many FOBs have fled the country, while we have
an SOB occupying public housing at the public's expense, sexaully
harrassing the women in his employ, lying, cheating, stealing, who
works hard at breaking the rules...who could have been an eponym for
the team of nine from Brooklyn!
Legatus
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
> Okay, but Scott Hahn is on often ..he is pretty good.
I've never seen Hahn on "LOTR", I don't watch that show often though.
> BTW, isn't revert a rather harsh word? This is the 1st time I have
> seen it used so, and it has a bad ring to it.
I believe Cavins calls himself a "revert". He was born Catholic,
apostasized, then "reverted" to Catholicism.
Stephanie Rendino
Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place? No
one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school. Every
one has been liberal arts.
janet
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>In <huM2PXCd...@allestree.demon.co.uk> janet
><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>In article <6oh2lm$o...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
>><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>>>This is not in keeping with the history of Catholicism. It is often
>>>the
>>>>laity that call the Hierarchy back to orthopraxy/orthodoxy. St.
>>>Francis
>>>>was a Deacon when he was sent forth to preach Holy Poverty.
>>>
>>>And, of course, there is St Catherine of Siena.
>>
>>Who is reported to have told a pope, about the cardinals around him:
>>
>>"You are a sweetsmelling flower, in a garden of foul weeds".
>>
>>Guts, the woman had GUTS! ;)
>
>But, she must have felt a lot of pain, because I have no doubt
>whatsoever that she wanted to be a priest, so she could be a bishop,
>then a cardinal, and then a pope.
>
>Ahhh, but it was to be. Since she was powerless, all she could do was
>yell at the pope. :-)
>
I'm going to assume all that in tongue in cheek. ;)
But your "nuns" didn't tell you much about her, if you think she was
powerless.
>Actaully, she was a loyal Catholic. The nuns told us about her in the
>6th grade.
>
>"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
>gave me"
>
>--Ed
--
janet
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>
>>Hello?
>>
>>Ed? Colleges are not there to teach morality.
>
>A Catholic college is not there to teach morality? Shall I tell you
>that I am gasping for air, my face is turning blue, my simian myriads
>are looking at me in astonishment, that ...that ...that ...I am
>speechless?
>
>Well, almost, thankfully.
>
>I am rapidly recovering.
>
>Indeed, I am fully recovered.
>
>The business of a college is to teach the truth.
Yes.
IN ONE'S AREA.
The truth in maths is NOT ethical, Ted.
> One thing that I have
>had on my reading agenda for several decades is to read Newman's idea
>of a university.
>
>So, a Catholic college is not to teach morality?
Not in every department, no.
In philosphy and theology, yes.
In the medical sciences, yes.
> What is its purpose
>then? To teach immorality, amorality, moral relativism, situation
>ethics, religious indifferentism, a kind of watered down Catholicism
>that is really a secularized Catholicism, a religion that conforms so
>closely to the mores of the world as to be indistinguishable from them?
>>
To teach truth.
Better yet, to help students FIND the truth.
The job of a teacher is to enable the student not to need the teacher
anymore.
>>When you take a course on morality, *then* you discuss it.
>
>Ethics is not a topic merely for discussion. One lives his ethics.
Yes, in that sense, yes.
>>
>>But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have the
>>responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
>
>Oh oh! Here we go again!
>
>Shall I respond, or let that vapid remark drift on by like the vacuous
>fog that it really is.
Whatever.
It's Aquinas, though....
>>
>>No, I don't disregard the souls of my students. But I don't have
>>complete responsibility for them, either.
>
>But at a Catholic college, the college does, in a way. Its purpose is
>to prepare the "little skulls filled with mush" for life in the world
>as Catholics, and to make a competent living.
College students are not children, Ted.
JPauwels
>From: eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne)
>Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 00:09 EDT
>Message-id: <6ojucu$j...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
>And of course, our bishops, most of them pusillanimous patsies,
Groan. Why do you delight in tearing down the faith?
have
>not really implemented the papal document on bringing Catholic colleges
>under control, the philosophy and theology departments, --is it called
>Ex Corde Ecclesia?
>
>The only schools that are really Catholic that I know of are Xtendom,
>St Francis, Thomas Aquinas in Calif, and U of Dallas. I frankly don't
>know of others.
"I frankly don't know". Maybe you should have just kept that part in, and
snipped the rest. What are your criteria for determining what colleges are
"really Catholic"? Describe your audit procedure.
Jim
JPauwels
>From: eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne)
>Message-id: <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
>
>In <leL3zaCC...@allestree.demon.co.uk> janet
><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>In article <6oh9ub$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
>><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>>
>>>
>>>Why is recommending that one pick a Catholic college that is loyal to
>>>the pope "distincly bad advice"?
>>>
>>
>>
>>If I were directing someone who wanted to do theology, I would use
>that
>>criterion.
>>
>>Maths? No.
>>
>>(I wouldn't direct ANYONE looking for maths, but I know people who
>know
>>about such things...).
>
>I don't look for maths, I use math balls to get rid of them.:-)
>>
>>>Should one go to a Catholic college that is trying to remake the
>church
>>>into the image the professors want?
>>>
>>Professors, most unfortunately, don't tend to have all that much
>contact
>>with students, in some areas and disciplines.
>>
>>What is important is the competence in one's AREA.
>
>Ahh, what would it profit a man if he were to gain the whole world and
>lose his immortal soul?
I was an econ major. How was my soul endangered by learning about the supply
of money and its relationship to interest rates?
>>If I am looking to do literary studies, I need someone who is not only
>>competent in that area, but can TEACH.
>>
>>Not someone with a wonderful research record, and no more sense of how
>>to teach than your average doormouse.
>>
>>Call me reactionary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>>
>>
>>Hello?
>>
>>Ed? Colleges are not there to teach morality.
>
>A Catholic college is not there to teach morality? Shall I tell you
>that I am gasping for air, my face is turning blue, my simian myriads
>are looking at me in astonishment, that ...that ...that ...I am
>speechless?
Don't look now ... I think he's agog :-)
>Well, almost, thankfully.
>
>I am rapidly recovering.
>
>Indeed, I am fully recovered.
>
>The business of a college is to teach the truth.
I don't think that statement covers the charter of a Catholic college, but
let's agree that it covers at least part of it, so we'll use it as a working
definition for purposes of this discussion. The question becomes, how is it
conveyed? (Wrong answer: preaching in the classroom).
>So, a Catholic college is not to teach morality? What is its purpose
>then? To teach immorality, amorality, moral relativism, situation
>ethics, religious indifferentism, a kind of watered down Catholicism
>that is really a secularized Catholicism, a religion that conforms so
>closely to the mores of the world as to be indistinguishable from them?
Well, philosophy in general, and especially ethics, of which morality is a
part, has both a positive and normative aspect. At the Catholic college I
attended (which, I can assure you, is unswerving in its fidelity to the Pope
and the Magisterium, notwithstanding that it teaches things that would make
Ed's hair stand on end, and leave him filled with amaze), every student who was
pursuing an undergraduate degree *did* study morality, in its positive aspects.
Including many of the things listed above, in their positive aspects. Readings
from Augustine and Aquinas were also standard. And philosophy majors studied
morality in much greater depth.
And the university had many, many resources in place to to teach a Catholic
way of life in its normative aspects. From chaplains on every floor of every
dormitory, to a provincial house full of priests, to masses galore, to peace
and justice activism. It was quite a wholistic approach.
>>When you take a course on morality, *then* you discuss it.
>
>Ethics is not a topic merely for discussion. One lives his ethics.
One does that outside the university, too. But the university is *precisely*
the place where ethics is discussed, in a formal, directed fashion. There is
great value to it.
Look at it this way: if one is to accuse one's brother of, say, modernism, it
is most helpful to have an accurate and contextual understanding of just what
modernism is. :-).
>>But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have the
>>responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
>
>Oh oh! Here we go again!
>
>Shall I respond, or let that vapid remark drift on by like the vacuous
>fog that it really is.
How surprising to hear you describe orthodox Catholic teaching that way.
>>No, I don't disregard the souls of my students. But I don't have
>>complete responsibility for them, either.
>
>But at a Catholic college, the college does, in a way. Its purpose is
>to prepare the "little skulls filled with mush" for life in the world
>as Catholics, and to make a competent living.
I agree. And that is what they do. Even the ones who don't make sworn fealty
to the pope a requirement for admission.
Jim
JPauwels
>Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 09:41 EDT
>Message-id: <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG>
>
>In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>
>one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school. Every
>one has been liberal arts.
Iirc, Notre Dame has an engineering school(?)
Jim
janet
<jpau...@aol.com> said unto us:
>
>>
>>Ahh, what would it profit a man if he were to gain the whole world and
>>lose his immortal soul?
>
>I was an econ major. How was my soul endangered by learning about the supply
>of money and its relationship to interest rates?
>
Wellllll, I should think that boredom and aceidia are not THAT far
apart!!!! ;)
(note for the humour impaired. that was a joke. it was intended to be
funny, coming from one who has already admitted her innumeracy).
[]
>>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello?
>>>
>>>Ed? Colleges are not there to teach morality.
>>
>>A Catholic college is not there to teach morality? Shall I tell you
>>that I am gasping for air, my face is turning blue, my simian myriads
>>are looking at me in astonishment, that ...that ...that ...I am
>>speechless?
>
>Don't look now ... I think he's agog :-)
Not in PUBLIC, I hope! ;)
Did you say agog, or with grog?
Cause that he can just jolly well share!!! ;)
>
>>Well, almost, thankfully.
>>
>>I am rapidly recovering.
>>
>>Indeed, I am fully recovered.
>>
>>The business of a college is to teach the truth.
>
>I don't think that statement covers the charter of a Catholic college, but
>let's agree that it covers at least part of it, so we'll use it as a working
>definition for purposes of this discussion. The question becomes, how is it
>conveyed? (Wrong answer: preaching in the classroom).
AGREED!
Unless, of course, one is teaching about preaching, but I was banned
from the class on homiletics....
So what would I know about preaching? ;>
>
>>So, a Catholic college is not to teach morality? What is its purpose
>>then? To teach immorality, amorality, moral relativism, situation
>>ethics, religious indifferentism, a kind of watered down Catholicism
>>that is really a secularized Catholicism, a religion that conforms so
>>closely to the mores of the world as to be indistinguishable from them?
>
>Well, philosophy in general, and especially ethics, of which morality is a
>part, has both a positive and normative aspect. At the Catholic college I
>attended (which, I can assure you, is unswerving in its fidelity to the Pope
>and the Magisterium, notwithstanding that it teaches things that would make
>Ed's hair stand on end, and leave him filled with amaze), every student who was
>pursuing an undergraduate degree *did* study morality, in its positive aspects.
>Including many of the things listed above, in their positive aspects. Readings
>from Augustine and Aquinas were also standard. And philosophy majors studied
>morality in much greater depth.
Grin....
Insert here the argument for, and the argument against, a core
curriculum.
Those studying in places other than the US may well not have a clue what
you mean! A physics major in most places here would take NO liberal
arts at all, and might well not have taken any since she was about
16....
[]
>
>>>When you take a course on morality, *then* you discuss it.
>>
>>Ethics is not a topic merely for discussion. One lives his ethics.
>
>One does that outside the university, too. But the university is *precisely*
>the place where ethics is discussed, in a formal, directed fashion. There is
>great value to it.
>
>Look at it this way: if one is to accuse one's brother of, say, modernism, it
>is most helpful to have an accurate and contextual understanding of just what
>modernism is. :-).
>
...........twang............
Agreed.
AND I think that (she says, jumping into the very debate she highlighted
above) that ALL students should take something along those lines...
>>>But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have the
>>>responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
>>
>>Oh oh! Here we go again!
>>
>>Shall I respond, or let that vapid remark drift on by like the vacuous
>>fog that it really is.
>
>How surprising to hear you describe orthodox Catholic teaching that way.
That's what I thought... (impish grin)
Legatus
jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Mr Angelica & Msgr Clark on EWTN Tonight
> >From: be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
> >Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 09:41 EDT
> >Message-id: <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG>
> >
> >In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> >Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
> >>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
> >>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
> >>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
> >>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
> >
> >Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place? No
> >one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school. Every
> >one has been liberal arts.
>
> Iirc, Notre Dame has an engineering school(?)
They also have Richard McBrian (McBrien?) as the head of theology! :)
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>> Iirc, Notre Dame has an engineering school(?)
>
>They also have Richard McBrian (McBrien?) as the head of theology! :)
But...he doesn't teach engineering.
Legatus
The following response is literally SCREAMING to come out of me! SOMEBODY
STOP ME! :)
But...he doesn't teach "Catholic" Theology either!
Ah...I feel much better now. :)
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>In article <6oo6o2$2...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>
>> In article <legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-57.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
>> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Iirc, Notre Dame has an engineering school(?)
>> >
>> >They also have Richard McBrian (McBrien?) as the head of theology! :)
>>
>> But...he doesn't teach engineering.
>
>The following response is literally SCREAMING to come out of me! SOMEBODY
>STOP ME! :)
>
>But...he doesn't teach "Catholic" Theology either!
Fair enough, he DID have his license taken away from him.
Legatus
But he's still driving around. The time will come when his "car" will be
reposessed...
ATTENTION...it is FRIDAY and I'm LOSING it. :)
Stephen Patten
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote in article
<legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-57.gsp.bellsouth.net>...
> In article <199807170436...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
>
> > ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Mr Angelica & Msgr Clark on EWTN Tonight
> > >From: be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
> > >Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 09:41 EDT
> > >Message-id: <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG>
> > >
> > >In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> > >Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
> > >>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not
permanent?
> > >>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual
relationships
> > >>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
> > >>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
> > >
> > >Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place?
No
> > >one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school.
Every
> > >one has been liberal arts.
> >
> > Iirc, Notre Dame has an engineering school(?)
>
> They also have Richard McBrian (McBrien?) as the head of theology! :)
So they're pretty 'sloppy' about who they appoint as heads of departments.
Pretty good reason not to study engineering or any other subject there, I'd
have thought.
Stephen Patten
Legatus
jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Mr Angelica & Msgr Clark on EWTN Tonight
> >From: leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus)
> >Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 11:48 EDT
> >Message-id: <legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-57.gsp.bellsouth.net>
> >
> >In article <199807170436...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> >jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Mr Angelica & Msgr Clark on EWTN Tonight
> >> >From: be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
> >> >Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 09:41 EDT
> >> >Message-id: <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG>
> >> >
> >> >In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> >Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
> >> >>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
> >> >>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
> >> >>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
> >> >>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
> >> >
> >> >Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place? No
> >> >one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school. Every
> >> >one has been liberal arts.
> >>
> >> Iirc, Notre Dame has an engineering school(?)
> >
> >They also have Richard McBrian (McBrien?) as the head of theology! :)
>
> I know what you're thinking :-). Given the amount of nasty stuff written
> about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his license
> to teach, are in good standing with the church.
But so are we...BOTH of us...which should scare EVERYONE! :)
Edward Thorne
writes:
>In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not
permanent?
>>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual
relationships
>>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>
>Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place?
No
>one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school.
Every
>one has been liberal arts.
>
>
they might teach him that Christ's resurrection was only symbolic, or
the Aposltes disillusioned.
Maybe'll they teach him that sexual relationships outside of marriage
are okay, provided they are caring, loving, and lasting.
Or, they'll pay scant notice to Humanae Vitae.
IOW, one cannot be guaranteed that if one went to a Catholic college
that he would get a Catholic education.
Maybe Jim is right after all.
JPauwels
>From: leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net (Legatus)
>Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 11:48 EDT
>Message-id: <legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-57.gsp.bellsouth.net>
>
>In article <199807170436...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Mr Angelica & Msgr Clark on EWTN Tonight
>> >From: be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
>> >Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 09:41 EDT
>> >Message-id: <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG>
>> >
>> >Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>> >>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not permanent?
>> >>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual relationships
>> >>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>> >>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>> >
>> >Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place? No
>> >one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school. Every
>> >one has been liberal arts.
>>
>
>They also have Richard McBrian (McBrien?) as the head of theology! :)
I know what you're thinking :-). Given the amount of nasty stuff written
about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his license
to teach, are in good standing with the church.
Jim
Edward Thorne
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
>>
>>>Hello?
>>>
>>>Ed? Colleges are not there to teach morality.
>>
>>A Catholic college is not there to teach morality? Shall I tell you
>>that I am gasping for air, my face is turning blue, my simian myriads
>>are looking at me in astonishment, that ...that ...that ...I am
>>speechless?
>>
>>
>>I am rapidly recovering.
>>
>>Indeed, I am fully recovered.
>>
>>The business of a college is to teach the truth.
>
>
>IN ONE'S AREA.
>
>The truth in maths is NOT ethical, Ted.
Well, I guess Ted could be my nickname, although my friends have never
called me that.
>
>> One thing that I have
>>had on my reading agenda for several decades is to read Newman's idea
>>of a university.
>>
>>So, a Catholic college is not to teach morality?
>
>Not in every department, no.
>
>In philosphy and theology, yes.
>
>In the medical sciences, yes.
>
>> What is its purpose
>>then? To teach immorality, amorality, moral relativism, situation
>>ethics, religious indifferentism, a kind of watered down Catholicism
>>that is really a secularized Catholicism, a religion that conforms so
>>closely to the mores of the world as to be indistinguishable from
them?
>>>
>
>To teach truth.
>
>Better yet, to help students FIND the truth.
>
>The job of a teacher is to enable the student not to need the teacher
>anymore.
>
>>>When you take a course on morality, *then* you discuss it.
>>
>>Ethics is not a topic merely for discussion. One lives his ethics.
>
>Yes, in that sense, yes.
>
>
>>>
>>>But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have
the
>>>responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
>>
>>Oh oh! Here we go again!
>>
>>Shall I respond, or let that vapid remark drift on by like the
vacuous
>>fog that it really is.
>
>Whatever.
>
>It's Aquinas, though....
I doubt that you have read what JP II said to some American bishops on
their quinquennial visit concerning the importance of having a right
conscience.
I'll have to turn it over to my simian myriads for typing, which is
something that they don't like doing.
>
>>>
>>>No, I don't disregard the souls of my students. But I don't have
>>>complete responsibility for them, either.
>>
>>But at a Catholic college, the college does, in a way. Its purpose
is
>>to prepare the "little skulls filled with mush" for life in the world
>>as Catholics, and to make a competent living.
>
>College students are not children, Ted.
No? Well, childish then?
Why do you keep calling me Ted?
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
>
>>>
>>"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
>>gave me"
>>
>>--Ed
>
janet
et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>> I know what you're thinking :-). Given the amount of nasty stuff written
>> about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his license
>> to teach, are in good standing with the church.
>
You guys have STL's?????
janet
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>
First off, sorry for addressing you as Ted, I do apologise!!!
>>>>
>>>>But by the time people get to college, they are adults. They have
>the
>>>>responsibility to form their OWN consciences!
>>>
>>>Oh oh! Here we go again!
>>>
>>>Shall I respond, or let that vapid remark drift on by like the
>vacuous
>>>fog that it really is.
>>
>>Whatever.
>>
>>It's Aquinas, though....
>
>I doubt that you have read what JP II said to some American bishops on
>their quinquennial visit concerning the importance of having a right
>conscience.
>
>I'll have to turn it over to my simian myriads for typing, which is
>something that they don't like doing.
>>
I didn't say people shouldn't have a right conscience, ED. (grin...got
it right!).
I *said* that people have a responsibility to form them!
Stephanie Rendino
Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG> be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
>>
>>>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
>>>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not
>permanent?
>>>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual
>relationships
>>>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
>>>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
>>
>>Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place?
>No
>>one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school.
>Every
>>one has been liberal arts.
>>
>>
>they might teach him that Christ's resurrection was only symbolic, or
>the Aposltes disillusioned.
But when I got out of high school, I knew that.
>Maybe'll they teach him that sexual relationships outside of marriage
>are okay, provided they are caring, loving, and lasting.
>
>Or, they'll pay scant notice to Humanae Vitae.
Snort. Yeah, like anyone else does. Again, I had my mind made up on that
by the time I was 12.
>IOW, one cannot be guaranteed that if one went to a Catholic college
>that he would get a Catholic education.
And again...why should it be a priority if you're not going to study
theology? Before I studied theology--which I studied first at a
Protestant school--I went to a state school. What's so wrong with that,
considering that most Catholic schools in the States are private and over
priced?
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>In article <199807180328...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
>> I know what you're thinking :-). Given the amount of nasty stuff written
>> about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his license
>> to teach, are in good standing with the church.
>
>But so are we...BOTH of us...which should scare EVERYONE! :)
I thought for sure he'd lost his license.
And no, you guys don't have licenses...you gotta earn that; it's what I'm
doing currently.
Legatus
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-36.gsp.bellsouth.n
> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
> >> I know what you're thinking :-). Given the amount of nasty stuff written
> >> about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his
license
> >> to teach, are in good standing with the church.
> >
> >But so are we...BOTH of us...which should scare EVERYONE! :)
>
> You guys have STL's?????
Scares you doesn't it?
But no, at least I don't. ALTHOUGH...My wife and I are THIS CLOSE (very
close indeed) to going for it.
I was referring to the "good standing with the Church" part.
janet
<be...@CAM.ORG> said unto us:
>In article <legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-36.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
>Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>>In article <199807180328...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>jpau...@aol.com (JPauwels) wrote:
>
>>> about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his
>license
>>> to teach, are in good standing with the church.
>>
>>But so are we...BOTH of us...which should scare EVERYONE! :)
>
>
>And no, you guys don't have licenses...you gotta earn that; it's what I'm
>doing currently.
Humph!!!
Earn it indeed... no lectio coram, right?? Earn it, humph, these young
things haven't a clue what we suffered in the OLD DAYS(tm)...
(that is a joke. I KNOW Steph is earning that. I am just winding her
up. She knows that. This is a joke. This warning will be repeated at
intervals for the hard of humour....).
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>In article <zjAnCQBA...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <legatus-1707...@host-209-214-200-36.gsp.bellsouth.n
>> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>> >> about him, it may be worth pointing out that Richard McBrien, and his
>license
>> >> to teach, are in good standing with the church.
>> >
>> >But so are we...BOTH of us...which should scare EVERYONE! :)
>>
>
>Scares you doesn't it?
>
>But no, at least I don't. ALTHOUGH...My wife and I are THIS CLOSE (very
>close indeed) to going for it.
Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
Stephen Patten
<6opvk5$c...@stratus.CAM.ORG>...
> In article <6op4rp$2...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <6okvu0$a...@stratus.CAM.ORG> be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
> >writes:
> >>
> >>In article <6oju0u$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> >>Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>SHould one go to a Catholic college that teaches that maybe Christ
> >>>>>didn't rise from the dead after all? That marriage is not
> >permanent?
> >>>>>That artificial contraception is okay? That homosexual
> >relationships
> >>>>>are okay if "lasting"? That maybe the bread and wine do not become
> >>>>>Christ's body and blood? etc etc
> >>
> >>Why is it necessary to go to a Catholic college in the first place?
> >No
> >>one has yet mentioned a really good Catholic engineering school.
> >Every
> >>one has been liberal arts.
> >>
>
> >IOW, one cannot be guaranteed that if one went to a Catholic college
> >that he would get a Catholic education.
>
> And again...why should it be a priority if you're not going to study
> theology? Before I studied theology--which I studied first at a
> Protestant school--I went to a state school. What's so wrong with that,
> considering that most Catholic schools in the States are private and over
> priced?
A Catholic college or school has to be such in fact as well as name. There
is more to a learning establishment than just the sum of its different
departments. And that is why many(most?) people choose to go to colleges
that call themselves Catholic - whether it be to study engineering or
theology. These people feel that they will benefit not just from the dept.
in which they study, but also from the Catholic ethos.
One good yardstick to judge whether a college or school is Catholic is with
regard to the teaching of theology (or Religious Education/Instruction in
schools). If these subjects are taught with scant regard to Catholic
doctrine and teaching then there are good grounds to question whether the
establishment is in fact Catholic. If the Catholic part is questionable,
then what about the term "college"? Why would an institute use a name that
it is not worthy of? Is it bothered about education and the truth, or is
it, interested in getting students with their fees to attend?
Stephen Patten
Legatus
Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
janet
>
>Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
>
>We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
Ohh, madonna, non mi dice... ??
You DON'T mean the infernal, ahem, eternal city, do you??
(But it's not a bad idea. Check out the tuition at the places there,
(The Angelicum is on the 'net) and then at the one (?) place in the
States...
Grin... I give cheap Italian lessons, btw! ;)
(But you can do it all at the Angelicum in English...).
HOWEVER, be advised that unless things have changed VERY much, a US BA
won't cut the mustard to get straight in, well, it didn't used to...
If that's the way your minds are going, email! ;)
--
janet
proudly called, "romana da roma"....
janet
<hei...@globalnet.co.uk> said unto us:
>
>One good yardstick to judge whether a college or school is Catholic is with
>regard to the teaching of theology (or Religious Education/Instruction in
>schools). If these subjects are taught with scant regard to Catholic
>doctrine and teaching then there are good grounds to question whether the
>establishment is in fact Catholic. If the Catholic part is questionable,
>then what about the term "college"? Why would an institute use a name that
>it is not worthy of? Is it bothered about education and the truth, or is
>it, interested in getting students with their fees to attend?
>
Can I point out, though, that there are at times, institutes WITHIN
institutions...?
There is one such at a University in California... the university
itself isn't renown for it's catholicity, I think, but the institute
within it, *is*, and so are many of its teachers...
Legatus
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-35.gsp.bellsouth.n
> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
> > Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
> >
> >Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
> >
> >We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
>
> Ohh, madonna, non mi dice... ??
>
> You DON'T mean the infernal, ahem, eternal city, do you??
Nope..some little college in the middle of "podunk" Virginia. It's
actually called "Christendom College" and we've been getting stuff from
their "Notre Dame Graduate School" (or whatever it is, I can't seem to
FIND anything right now).
And quite frankly...the Diocese of Charleston is driving us crazy.
janet
net>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>In article <aMwYHIBz...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
><ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-35.gsp.bellsouth.n
>> et>, Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> said unto us:
>> > Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
>> >
>> >Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
>> >
>> >We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
>>
>> Ohh, madonna, non mi dice... ??
>>
>> You DON'T mean the infernal, ahem, eternal city, do you??
>
>Nope..some little college in the middle of "podunk" Virginia. It's
>actually called "Christendom College" and we've been getting stuff from
>their "Notre Dame Graduate School" (or whatever it is, I can't seem to
>FIND anything right now).
They do an STL?
Um, I'm perfectly serious here, please email...
Stephanie Rendino
Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>One good yardstick to judge whether a college or school is Catholic is with
>regard to the teaching of theology (or Religious Education/Instruction in
>schools). If these subjects are taught with scant regard to Catholic
>doctrine and teaching then there are good grounds to question whether the
>establishment is in fact Catholic. If the Catholic part is questionable,
>then what about the term "college"? Why would an institute use a name that
>it is not worthy of? Is it bothered about education and the truth, or is
>it, interested in getting students with their fees to attend?
No connection, in my observation.
Someone here complained about Georgetown, for instance. I don't know what
Georgetown's theology department is like at all. I do know that it is an
excellent place for a law degree, a linguistics degree, or a medical
degree.
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>> Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
>
>Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
>
>We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
Front Royal, Virginia is sort of my parents' neck of the woods. Northern
Virginia and southern Maryland is a great place to be if you're looking
for work of ANY kind.
Does Christendom offer the STL?
Stephen Patten
Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
<6or0bq$k...@ocean.CAM.ORG>...
It may well teach you the technical skills required to be a lawyer,
interpreter/translator, or doctor, but will it teach you how best to use
these arts? If you end up using you skills to promote unjust laws,
interpret for Saddam Hussein or carry out abortions then it hasn't really
given you a 'good' degree, has it?
It is one thing to learn an art, it is another thing to use it wisely.
That, surely, is what good university (or college in the US) education is
all about?
Stephen Patten
>
Telemachus
/snip/
>It may well teach you the technical skills required to be a lawyer,
>interpreter/translator, or doctor, but will it teach you how best to use
>these arts? If you end up using you skills to promote unjust laws,
>interpret for Saddam Hussein or carry out abortions then it hasn't really
>given you a 'good' degree, has it?
Sorry, but I'm a bit confused as to your point here, Stephen.
By the time you arrive at university, you're an adult. If you've been raised
within a Christian family, gone to Christian schools -- then hopefully you
arrive at university with a pretty good idea of the difference between right
and wrong. If you haven't -- then it stands to reason that all the moralising
in the world ain't gonna change your mind.
Respectfully
--
Telemachus
Stephen Patten
Telemachus <telem...@nym.alias.net> wrote in article
<1998071821541...@nym.alias.net>...
The idea that all those who call themselves Christian and have been
educated at a Christian school are experts in making moral judgements is
questionable.
A person is always learning right from wrong. Even if one assumes they
have a good grounding in the general principles of morality, not all have
the time or ability to work out its practice in different situations. To
say that further education in morality, especially in the use of the arts
acquired at university.
When I studied economics at university I assumed that capitalism was
morally superior to other economic systems. I also believed whole-heartedly
that material success was an important criteria in judging one's life. I
couldn't see anything wrong with usury, nor could I understand why Third
World countries should be excused their debts (afterall, I was expected to
pay back the loans I'd taken out to go to university). Had I not been
taught (outside of university, as it happens) a bit more about right from
wrong, and also why it was so important not to do wrong, I'd still be
thinking the same today - 20 years on.
I hope that unconfuses you :) (though in fairness, the confusion is
probably down to the my poor writing skills).
respectfully,
Stephen Patten
>
> Respectfully
>
> --
> Telemachus
>
>
>
Stephanie Rendino
Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
><6or0bq$k...@ocean.CAM.ORG>...
>It may well teach you the technical skills required to be a lawyer,
>interpreter/translator, or doctor, but will it teach you how best to use
>these arts? If you end up using you skills to promote unjust laws,
>interpret for Saddam Hussein or carry out abortions then it hasn't really
>given you a 'good' degree, has it?
Sheesh...see below.
>It is one thing to learn an art, it is another thing to use it wisely.
>That, surely, is what good university (or college in the US) education is
>all about?
Since when?
When I graduated from my state school with a degree in International
Relations, I had a good idea of what I should and shouldn't do with it.
Now, while ethics are a part of all medical and legal degrees, which mine
wasn't, I don't see any reason why people in other fields, such as the
aforementioned linguistics, need classes to tell them, "Now this is GOOD
and this is BAD" as if they were four-year-olds!
If someone with a linguistics degree wants to work for Saddam Hussein, I
don't think having taken a mandatory course on ethics is going to stop
them.
Again, if someone is majoring in mathematics, why would they need to have
religion brought into it?
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
Uh...call me stupid, but I'm not sure what you mean.
>If they DON'T then someone is misrepresenting something to me...but I'm
>certain they do...Licentiate of (or is it "in") Sacred Theology is STL
>isn't it?
I guess it would be. It's the "License en Theologie" in French.
>They're either specifically capable of offering it on campus, or they're
>farming it out to SOMEONE.
Yeah, watch it turn out to be Georgetown...
(I have NO idea what the program in Theology is like at Georgetown, or
Catholic U. for that matter. I know people here complain about it, but
without course catalogs and first-hand accounts I refuse to make a
judgement.)
Stephen Patten
Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
<6or8a1$i...@stratus.CAM.ORG>...
> In article <01bdb28d$fa4fab60$ed1a93c3@computer1>,
> Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
> ><6or0bq$k...@ocean.CAM.ORG>...
>
> >It may well teach you the technical skills required to be a lawyer,
> >interpreter/translator, or doctor, but will it teach you how best to use
> >these arts? If you end up using you skills to promote unjust laws,
> >interpret for Saddam Hussein or carry out abortions then it hasn't
really
> >given you a 'good' degree, has it?
>
> Sheesh...see below.
>
> >It is one thing to learn an art, it is another thing to use it wisely.
> >That, surely, is what good university (or college in the US) education
is
> >all about?
>
> Since when?
The time of Plato or thereabouts, possibly even before that. IRRC, one of
the chief complaints against the schools of the Sophists was that they
taught only the skills necessary to get on (rhetoric etc.) without giving
the students any real form of moral education.
>
> When I graduated from my state school with a degree in International
> Relations, I had a good idea of what I should and shouldn't do with it.
> Now, while ethics are a part of all medical and legal degrees, which mine
> wasn't, I don't see any reason why people in other fields, such as the
> aforementioned linguistics, need classes to tell them, "Now this is GOOD
> and this is BAD" as if they were four-year-olds!
You assume that everyone was, or is, as well developed ethically as you
were when you left school. Either you have too low an opinion of your own
knowledge of ethics or a too high a one of everyone else.
Not being an expert on International Relations, I'd still hazard a guess
that it dealt with such issues as warfare and developing nations. You may
have had a thorough grounding in the Concept of a Just War, or been well
read on the papal encyclicals dealing with international debt etc, but not
everyone has.
I
>
> If someone with a linguistics degree wants to work for Saddam Hussein, I
> don't think having taken a mandatory course on ethics is going to stop
> them.
Depends how great his desire to work for Saddam Hussein was before he's
taken his 'mandatory course'.
> Again, if someone is majoring in mathematics, why would they need to have
> religion brought into it?
>
Try dealing with the concept of infinity and not introduce religion. Or
logistics and logic without God. Take a look at a book on the philosophy
of maths and see why a grounding in your faith is necessary - it deals with
the concepts of truth, falsehood and existence. You can't fully
understand these without calling into question what is truth, or who made
me (and everything else, for that matter).
With the best will in the world, I cannot see why you think the religious
education of every 18 year old equips them to deal with these topics
without further assistance. If you think about it a bit, you'll come
across innumerable situations in every field of study where Catholicsm
enters in. Be it to answer a moral, philosophical or historical question.
Stephen Patten
>
Legatus
> In article <legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-35.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>
> >> Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
> >
> >Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
> >
> >We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
>
> Front Royal, Virginia is sort of my parents' neck of the woods. Northern
> Virginia and southern Maryland is a great place to be if you're looking
> for work of ANY kind.
>
> Does Christendom offer the STL?
We're talking white pom-poms here aren't we? :)
If they DON'T then someone is misrepresenting something to me...but I'm
certain they do...Licentiate of (or is it "in") Sacred Theology is STL
isn't it?
They're either specifically capable of offering it on campus, or they're
farming it out to SOMEONE.
--
Telemachus
>Telemachus <telem...@nym.alias.net> wrote in article
><1998071821541...@nym.alias.net>...
/snip/
>When I studied economics at university I assumed that capitalism was
>morally superior to other economic systems.
I studied economics in my first year -- but I had no such assumption about
capitalism when I arrived.
> I also believed whole-heartedly that material success was an important
>criteria in judging one's life. I couldn't see anything wrong with usury,
> nor could I understand why Third World countries should be excused their
>debts (afterall, I was expected to pay back the loans I'd taken out to go to
> university). Had I not been taught (outside of university, as it happens)
>a bit more about right from wrong, and also why it was so important not to do
> wrong, I'd still be thinking the same today - 20 years on.
I've tried in vain to find a way to put this tactfully, Stephen, so (gulp) I
hope you won't take offence at what I am about to say.
All the above says is that when you arrived at university, you were still
fairly immature. That is to say, you had not yet arrived at the stage where you
questioned the ethics of the system you had been raised under.
Surely, any university worth its salt teaches you how to think for yourself,
how to research a subject, how to form your own *informed* opinions. It's not a
matter of being "taught" ethics. It's a matter of opening your eyes to the
world around you, mixing with people from different backgrounds, different
cultures and different religions. That is how one matures.
If a university does not succeed in providing its students with the above
milieu, then it doesn't matter a hoot whether it is Catholic, Baptist, Mormon,
Muslim or Pagan -- it is failing in one of its most important tasks. And I bet
you any amount -- its academic standing won't be very high either.
>I hope that unconfuses you :) (though in fairness, the confusion is
>probably down to the my poor writing skills).
Not at all -- it is down to the problems of communicating on Usenet we all
face. You mean one thing by a word, I could mean something slightly different.
We only have the words you know. Gotta learn each others' dictionaries.
Respectfully
--
Telemachus
Legatus
> In article <legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-57.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
> >In article <6or059$k...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
wrote:
> >
> >> In article
<legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-35.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> >> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
> >> >
> >> >Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
> >> >
> >> >We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
> >>
> >> Front Royal, Virginia is sort of my parents' neck of the woods. Northern
> >> Virginia and southern Maryland is a great place to be if you're looking
> >> for work of ANY kind.
> >>
> >> Does Christendom offer the STL?
> >
> >We're talking white pom-poms here aren't we? :)
>
> Uh...call me stupid, but I'm not sure what you mean.
One of the "enticements" being bandied about is the right to wear a white
pom-pom on a biretta if you obtain an STL... Theoretically, this would
only apply to a cleric who had the right of the biretta in the first
place...but apparently the "regs" assumed anyone holding an STL would BE a
cleric therefore, loosely it reads..."Get your STL and wear a white
pom-pom on your biretta".
SOOO...Steph, you might wanna check up on that...and then GO BLOW SOME MINDS! :)
> >If they DON'T then someone is misrepresenting something to me...but I'm
> >certain they do...Licentiate of (or is it "in") Sacred Theology is STL
> >isn't it?
>
> I guess it would be. It's the "License en Theologie" in French.
>
> >They're either specifically capable of offering it on campus, or they're
> >farming it out to SOMEONE.
>
> Yeah, watch it turn out to be Georgetown...
Somehow, I can't see it. At least not with THESE BLINDERS on! :)
Stephen Patten
Telemachus <telem...@nym.alias.net> wrote in article
<199807190054...@nym.alias.net>...
Bang on.
>
> Surely, any university worth its salt teaches you how to think for
yourself,
> how to research a subject, how to form your own *informed* opinions. It's
not a
> matter of being "taught" ethics. It's a matter of opening your eyes to
the
> world around you, mixing with people from different backgrounds,
different
> cultures and different religions. That is how one matures.
One also has to celebrate quite a few birthdays. I'd agree that it is not
necessary to be taught ethics, but it doesn't half help. The reasons for
which I outline below.
>
> If a university does not succeed in providing its students with the above
> milieu, then it doesn't matter a hoot whether it is Catholic, Baptist,
Mormon,
> Muslim or Pagan -- it is failing in one of its most important tasks. And
I bet
> you any amount -- its academic standing won't be very high either.
True. But, being taught to form your own opinions cannot be done without
reference to essential principles. A Catholic would, and should, be taught
that one's own opinions are erroneous when they conflict with Catholic
teaching. I could hold an opinion, reached by myself, that abortion (for
instance) is acceptable in certain cases. I might have reached that
opinion on the basis that an embryo is inhuman, and that for pressing
economical or psychological reasons terminating a pregnancy was the better
course of action. This opinion arrived at by reasoning, validly, from my
premise about the humanity of the unborn child.
The problem is that the premise, from which I reasoned , is false. Here is
the danger regarding just being taught to think and reason. Even if I
reason validly, if I start with false premises I end up with false
conclusions, and opinions.
Agreed that all colleges might teach me how to reason correctly (unless it
was an American one, where I'd more likely be taught about 'intuition'),
but how many equip us with knowledge of the true premises on which to found
are reasoning.
Yours confusingly,
Stephen Patten
p.s. Can anyone remember the full quote from Alice in Wonderland about the
difference between "meaning what you say, and saying what you mean"?
Stephen Patten
<01bdb2e8$097ebea0$6e1b93c3@computer1>...
>
>
> Telemachus <telem...@nym.alias.net> wrote in article
> <199807190054...@nym.alias.net>...
> > On 18 Jul 1998 22:29:38 GMT "Stephen Patten" <hei...@globalnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Telemachus <telem...@nym.alias.net> wrote in article
> > ><1998071821541...@nym.alias.net>...
> > /snip/
> >
> > Surely, any university worth its salt teaches you how to think for
> yourself,
> > how to research a subject, how to form your own *informed* opinions.
It's
> not a
> > matter of being "taught" ethics. It's a matter of opening your eyes to
> the
> > world around you, mixing with people from different backgrounds,
> different
> > cultures and different religions. That is how one matures.
> >
> > If a university does not succeed in providing its students with the
above
> > milieu, then it doesn't matter a hoot whether it is Catholic, Baptist,
> Mormon,
> > Muslim or Pagan -- it is failing in one of its most important tasks.
And
> I bet
> > you any amount -- its academic standing won't be very high either.
While I'm in agreement with you about the need to provide the milieu you
describe, I believe that a good university providing education, rather than
skill-training, needs to do more than just this.
University education, in whatever field we study, also requires us to
improve our numeracy and communication skills (I bunked off most of the
lectures dealing with the latter - as is obvious:). No one would disagree
with this, as few would accept that every 18 year old is a Euler or a
Chesterton. So why is it felt, by some, that everyone is an expert in
morality and needs no further education - using the term 'morality' to
describe the skill of 'doing the right thing'. Surely one can only hold
this opinion about morality if one believes that morality is a subjective,
personal matter, without reference to objective truths.
Bye for now (or BFN as Jimmy Young would say)
janet
>> >
>> >We're talking white pom-poms here aren't we? :)
>>
>> Uh...call me stupid, but I'm not sure what you mean.
>
>One of the "enticements" being bandied about is the right to wear a white
>pom-pom on a biretta if you obtain an STL... Theoretically, this would
>only apply to a cleric who had the right of the biretta in the first
>place...but apparently the "regs" assumed anyone holding an STL would BE a
>cleric therefore, loosely it reads..."Get your STL and wear a white
>pom-pom on your biretta".
>
>SOOO...Steph, you might wanna check up on that...and then GO BLOW SOME MINDS!
>:)
Huge grin....
A friend of mine finished her JCD, (doctorate in canon law) the year
after her STD.
SHE wanted some of that sort of thing, so we got a friend, (eg, we told
him we'd feed him, if he did it, always works...) to dig up the old
rules about degree garb.
Those in hand, we went to Gamarelli's, "the" clerical outfitters, (they
make the pope's little white hats, don't you know... you dress up to
even go in the SHOP!!!).
They made her a gown with interior cape, in all the right colours and
all the right fittings... It was gorgeous, but I've NO idea where she
will ever wear it!!
Here, at least, there are places where teachers show up to work in
degree gowns, (not my place!! Not my place!!!)....
>
>> >If they DON'T then someone is misrepresenting something to me...but I'm
>> >certain they do...Licentiate of (or is it "in") Sacred Theology is STL
>> >isn't it?
>>
>> I guess it would be. It's the "License en Theologie" in French.
Grin... Licenza in Italian... you get it, they all call you
professore! ;) (Well, ok, professoressa, but who's counting!). ;)
(They ALSO style you "domina", which just gave me SUCH a kick when I saw
it!!) ;)
>>
>> >They're either specifically capable of offering it on campus, or they're
>> >farming it out to SOMEONE.
>>
>> Yeah, watch it turn out to be Georgetown...
>
>Somehow, I can't see it. At least not with THESE BLINDERS on! :)
At least back in my day, I decided against Georgetown on the basis, I
hate to say, of MONEY. The fees!!! Oh, ack!! But that was in the dark
ages, things may well have changed! ;)
janet
<telem...@nym.alias.net> said unto us:
>Respectfully
>
>--
>Telemachus
>
TELEMACHUS?
Hello, btw, you seem to be new, and being respectful, of course, is
right in character.
Um, but, ("crash!! smash!!") I think your mother might ("break!!
howl!!") need your assistance, and ("whallop! smasch!!") those "guests"
in the front room are getting out of hand...
(whispers: there's an old beggar man outside, Telly, I think talking to
him might be a VERY GOOD THING!).
Allow me to hold the quiver.... ;)
janet
<telem...@nym.alias.net> said unto us:
>Surely, any university worth its salt teaches you how to think for yourself,
>how to research a subject, how to form your own *informed* opinions. It's not a
>matter of being "taught" ethics. It's a matter of opening your eyes to the
>world around you, mixing with people from different backgrounds, different
>cultures and different religions. That is how one matures.
>
I would agree.
To me, the point of teaching is to enable my students to learn.
Eventually, to learn WITHOUT being taught in such a formal setting!
I make it quite clear that I am NOT there to tell them what to think. I
am there to open up areas of thought, to show them what others have said
and thought, to show CONNECTIONS, which to me is one of the more
important things...
>If a university does not succeed in providing its students with the above
>milieu, then it doesn't matter a hoot whether it is Catholic, Baptist, Mormon,
>Muslim or Pagan -- it is failing in one of its most important tasks. And I bet
>you any amount -- its academic standing won't be very high either.
I would very much hope that last one is right.
However, I think there may be something else here, which is pastoral
care, (enjoined certainly on all universities in this country, secular
or not- if you get public money, you have to show you do it!).
For undergrads, 17 yrs old and up, it has a different "flavour" than
say, for my continuing ed. students.
[]
Stephanie Rendino
Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>In article <6oro0b$o...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>
>> In article <legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-57.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
>> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>> >In article <6or059$k...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
><legatus-1807...@host-209-214-200-35.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
>> >> Legatus <leg...@bellsmouth.cheeseguard.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Oh yeah. What schools around you offer it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Did I mention, we're going to have to move first? :)
>> >> >
>> >> >We ARE considering a major move...straight to Christendom.
>> >>
>> >> Front Royal, Virginia is sort of my parents' neck of the woods. Northern
>> >> Virginia and southern Maryland is a great place to be if you're looking
>> >> for work of ANY kind.
>> >>
>> >
>> >We're talking white pom-poms here aren't we? :)
>>
>> Uh...call me stupid, but I'm not sure what you mean.
>
>One of the "enticements" being bandied about is the right to wear a white
>pom-pom on a biretta if you obtain an STL... Theoretically, this would
>only apply to a cleric who had the right of the biretta in the first
>place...but apparently the "regs" assumed anyone holding an STL would BE a
>cleric therefore, loosely it reads..."Get your STL and wear a white
>pom-pom on your biretta".
I really don't know anything about that...it would look mighty silly
though.
Stephanie Rendino
janet <ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I guess it would be. It's the "License en Theologie" in French.
>
>Grin... Licenza in Italian... you get it, they all call you
>professore! ;) (Well, ok, professoressa, but who's counting!). ;)
>(They ALSO style you "domina", which just gave me SUCH a kick when I saw
>it!!) ;)
REALLY?
>At least back in my day, I decided against Georgetown on the basis, I
>hate to say, of MONEY. The fees!!! Oh, ack!! But that was in the dark
>ages, things may well have changed! ;)
The only person I know who's there is on a fellowship. Then there's
Catholic U., the most expensive school in the U.S. and they STILL take up
an annual collection for it. My Sainted Mommy lets that basket pass
by--she don't donate to any school people can't afford to attend!
Raven
<cough, splutter> Adult!!!! Telemachus, when was the last time
you actualy visited a university?
Agreed, in an ideal world, those reaching the age at which they
go to university would indeed have developed an adult mind-set.
HOWEVER, it is a FAR from ideal world. For the majority of those
going to uni, it is the first time they have had the personal
responsibility of acting without being under the 'umbrela' of
their parents control.
They, if their parents have managed to do a reasonable job,
indeed have the tools to form an adult mind-set (including
personal ethics) BUT they have only just started the proccess of
forming it.
A parent can only ensure that the child has the tools with which
to form themselves into responcible adults, they CANNOT force
the child into using those tools correctly!
We start that process once we begin to take responcibility for
ourselves, but continue to develop skills and ethics throughout
our adult life.
All too many of those at uni have barely began to take the first
steps in doing so!
--
Raven (Brit) FYI: A Pagan, not a Christian!
(Ra...@arpeggio.demon.co.uk)