Doubts about Newman's Beatification
#11
(10-06-2010, 12:02 PM)Anastasia Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:56 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:49 AM)Anastasia Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:28 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:13 AM)Clare Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization.

Quite. St Augustine was a heretic once too.

Quote:As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

Tabloid sensationalism.

Hardly tabloid speculation.  Newman was a very prickly pear back in his day, and extremely uncharitable to Cardinal Manning with the latter came to visit him personally and attempt to patch things up over their public disagreements.  +Newman had one of his minions say the Cardinal wasn't at home when +Manning came to call.... totally fruity behavior.

+Manning said +Newman was a heretic.  I trust +Manning.
Not wanting to speak to someone is "fruity"? Not that we can expect any better from TIA. It never seems to have occurred to anyone to ask, if he was so obviously homosexual, how did he manage to escape trial for sodomy? Victorian England wasn't exactly forgiving when it came to genuine homosexual behaviour. And Blessed Newman was put on trial for his Faith once already. If the British government had anything even remotely indicating that he was gay, they'd have run it for all it was worth.
If anyone is truly interested in a biography of Newman, you can read the excellent biography Michael Davies wrote. Or is Davies not sufficiently "trad" anymore?

As I said, his homosexuality is mostly irrelevant, although it might provide some insight into the errors he embraced, and never left off with after he became Catholic, as well as his behavior in the face of criticism of these.  Those who are interested in canonizing him are interested in canonizing his theology, which according to some very thoughtful of his contemporaries was suspect. 

All of your other comments are post hoc propter hoc ... you're assuming that because he was never arrested for the crime that he wasn't. He certainly did and said things that were odd and indicative of someone who suffers from that mental disturbance.   
No, when you have a government looking for anything and everything to prosecute him for (and the Brits certainly were), it makes no sense that they would have overlooked something that TIA says is so obvious. And we still haven't seen anything that's genuinely indicative of homosexuality.  Again, not choosing to see someone does not mean they're gay. I mean, really.
On the theology issue, you can find someone who disagreed with the theology of many great saints. St Thomas Aquinas was not universally admired in his own time.

I'm not choosing anything, people who act like +Newman did are effeminate.  When a gentleman travels many miles to visit you and make things right, and you turn him away because you're so mad at him, that's not a manly thing to do.

Newman's theology takes a much greater departure from Orthodoxy than can be said of Aquinas or Avila, and Avila had the benefit of the Inquisition which chose not to condemn her.

Reply
#12
Um, I have to say that it is incredibly ridiculous to say someone might be gay because they refused to see someone who came to visit.  I mean... c'mon!  The most we can say about that is that it is rude or passive aggressive, but to make a leap and say that is somehow homosexual behavior has to rank among some of the most illogical statements I've seen here on the tank.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
#13
(10-06-2010, 12:29 PM)Jesse Wrote: Um, I have to say that it is incredibly ridiculous to say someone might be gay because they refused to see someone who came to visit.  I mean... c'mon!  The most we can say about that is that it is rude or passive aggressive, but to make a leap and say that is somehow homosexual behavior has to rank among some of the most illogical statements I've seen here on the tank.

Pax,
Jesse

I didn't say he was a Sodomite for that reason, I described it as effeminate behavior.  +Newman steadfastly refused to address +Manning's concerns about his lack of orthodoxy and he was petty about it too, and that didn't stop after both men were in the ground, +Newman's disciples continued to ridicule +Manning's "Ultramontanism" and provonciality....

The more I read about +Newman, the more I really don't like what I see.
Reply
#14
(10-06-2010, 12:15 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I'm not choosing anything, people who act like +Newman did are effeminate.  When a gentleman travels many miles to visit you and make things right, and you turn him away because you're so mad at him, that's not a manly thing to do.

And clearly Saint Peter was an effeminate since he wasn't willing to stand up for Christ - but instead denied Him thrice before the cock crowed.  That's not very manly behavior, is it?
Reply
#15
AugustineBaker isn't just plucking this out of the air.

Sure we can't be hasty in attributing Sodomy to anybody with a Sanguine or extrovert temperament, but equally when beatification is being considered ... I mean after all I would say that anyone with even a completely sublimated(celibate) inclination towards Homosexuality no longer has a vocation to the Priesthood, let alone Sainthood.

No doubt an out of the closet 'Bender' would have been prosecuted, like the Pederast Oscar Wilde, in 19th Century Britain. but this playwrite found no shortage of sexual degenerates amongst his urbane playmates, many of whom escaped the lash of Corporal Punishment.

It is rather hopeful, to say the least, to expect that IF Newman was disordered in this way the Public Authorities would have been kind enough to have picked up on this for us, so that we would not be faced with the conundrum of his 'gayness' today.  Get real.

Look in any history book. The Victorians are renowned for their 'double standards' and became resented by the masses precisely because of their 'one rule for them, and another for us' mentality.  For this reason the Bourgeoisie of Victorian Britain set the scene for the turmoil that Modern Europe has fallen into.  With their hardcore of Liberal ideology, they were a fertile seedbed for Moral hypocrasy and Social Revolutionaries of many stripes.  Newman was a Victorian too.

Another starting point, even if a distasteful one, on the subject would be the British site for -

OUTRAGE -Twenty Years of Angry Queers

A quick search will lift up the article by the infamous 'Campaigner for Human Rights' Mr Peter Tatchell, Member of Parliament and, er, Revolutionary Trotskyite.

In this most genteel of articles he informs about the delectable topic of how Cardinal Newman was gay and loved Father Ambrose St John with a burning ardour.
Reply
#16
Quote:LETTER
In which Pope Pius X approves the work of the Bishop of Limerick on the writings of Cardinal Newman.

To his Venerable Brother
Edward Thomas Bishop of Limerick

Venerable Brother, greetings and Our Apostolic blessing. We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us: for you could not have better served both the truth and the dignity of man. It is clear that those people whose errors We have condemned in that Document had decided among themselves to produce something of their own invention with which to seek the commendation of a distinguished person. And so they everywhere assert with confidence that they have taken these things from the very source and summit of authority, and that therefore We cannot censure their teachings, but rather that We had even previously gone so far as to condemn what such a great author had taught. Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See. Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness. For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate. Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so. Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so. Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith. To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circumstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God's goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, on 10 March 1908, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Pius PP. X
Reply
#17
(10-06-2010, 01:20 PM)Remegius Wrote: I mean after all I would say that anyone with even a completely sublimated(celibate) inclination towards Homosexuality no longer has a vocation to the Priesthood, let alone Sainthood.

So people who happen to have sinful inclinations but through perseverance fight against them successfully can't go to Heaven?  You're saying none of the saints have ever had inclinations toward sin? 

Behaving effeminate, "bending," and such are obviously steps on the road to Hell, but to say that having an inclination toward any particular sin in and of itself bars one from being a saint is going a bit far.
Reply
#18
(10-06-2010, 01:48 PM)3Sanctus Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 01:20 PM)Remegius Wrote: I mean after all I would say that anyone with even a completely sublimated(celibate) inclination towards Homosexuality no longer has a vocation to the Priesthood, let alone Sainthood.

So people who happen to have sinful inclinations but through perseverance fight against them successfully can't go to Heaven?  You're saying none of the saints have ever had inclinations toward sin? 

Behaving effeminate, "bending," and such are obviously steps on the road to Hell, but to say that having an inclination toward any particular sin in and of itself bars one from being a saint is going a bit far.

I absolutely agree.  We ALL have a vocation to Sainthood, regardless of our inclinations.  It's how we deal with them that gets us to heaven, not that we have them.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
#19
(10-06-2010, 12:59 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: And clearly Saint Peter was an effeminate since he wasn't willing to stand up for Christ - but instead denied Him thrice before the cock crowed.  That's not very manly behavior, is it?

No it was because he sat around naked in a fishing boat with a bunch of other guys... ::)
Quote:That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him, (for he was naked,) and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the ship, (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.
Reply
#20
Remegius puts this forward;

Quote;
No doubt an out of the closet 'Bender' would have been prosecuted, like the Pederast Oscar Wilde, in 19th Century Britain. but this playwrite found no shortage of sexual degenerates amongst his urbane playmates, many of whom escaped the lash of Corporal Punishment.

I leave it to the wholly superior Liberal Arts degreed but is this purple prose ? It sure reads like that to an ignorant engineer.

This is a perfect example of what I've said. First we get a questionable piece of gossip, and then we get the greek chorus in Remegius. You all be the judge is this scandal merchants in action ?

tim the bloated rancid beer drinker
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)