Doubts about Newman's Beatification
#31
Re: Jesse  "in fact, someone who consistently fights temptations, especially those of the flesh, and does not give in would make a great saint!"

Yeah I suppose so Jesse, if you say so.


And I can't agree with you on Usury or Sodomy.  The two are sins against the natural order and the Moral order, and anybody under a habitual compulsion to commit either of these, wether they caved in or not, would not be good candidates for Priesthood.

Irrespective of the loose comments about Saint Peter in the boat I was trying to contribute to a serious discussion on this thread.
Reply
#32
(10-06-2010, 03:32 PM)geogeer Wrote: Unfortunately it is all supposition.

Sometimes the most fun questions to ask are those with no real answers.  :)

Given the fact what Saint Peter was wearing at that moment and why he dove into the water aren't issues pertinent to salvation (as far as I can tell), I don't see any trouble in that particular topic being considered a "fun" one.  :)
Reply
#33
(10-06-2010, 04:18 PM)Remegius Wrote: Re: Jesse  "in fact, someone who consistently fights temptations, especially those of the flesh, and does not give in would make a great saint!"

Yeah I suppose so Jesse, if you say so.

It seems as if this is meant as a sarcastic tone.  If so, please note that sarcasm does nothing to disprove what I have to say.  If not, my apologies for misreading you.

Quote:And I can't agree with you on Usury or Sodomy.  The two are sins against the natural order and the Moral order, and anybody under a habitual compulsion to commit either of these, wether they caved in or not, would not be good candidates for Priesthood.

We were actually talking specifically about Sainthood, not Priesthood.  Also, habitual, involuntary compulsions are not something we choose; they are the Cross that has been given to us to carry, and carrying our Crosses well sounds like a good way to become a Saint, not a detriment to it.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
#34
(10-06-2010, 04:37 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 04:18 PM)Remegius Wrote: And I can't agree with you on Usury or Sodomy.  The two are sins against the natural order and the Moral order, and anybody under a habitual compulsion to commit either of these, wether they caved in or not, would not be good candidates for Priesthood.

We were actually talking specifically about Sainthood, not Priesthood.  Also, habitual, involuntary compulsions are not something we choose; they are the Cross that has been given to us to carry, and carrying our Crosses well sounds like a good way to become a Saint, not a detriment to it.

Pax,
Jesse

Precisely.  The issue here is you have said people with tendencies toward sodomy (no matter what) cannot enter in Heaven.  Do you have something to back that up?  I can't imagine you do.  In all charity, if you have nothing to back it up let us all drop the conversation - nothing is to be gained from it if that is the case.
Reply
#35
(10-06-2010, 01:28 PM)Clare Wrote:
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

That's not the first time I've seen this...
Reply
#36
(10-06-2010, 03:08 PM)3Sanctus Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 02:48 PM)Remegius Wrote: I was not referring to an inclination towards 'any' sin.

I was referring to the sin of Sodomy. The 1962 Missal lists this as a sin 'Crying out to heaven for vengeance'.

Scripture seems explicit enough.

"And the men of Sodom were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure" Genesis 13:13.  Not to mention the destruction of the Sodomites, Genesis 19:24.

A sodomite and a homosexual are not the same thing.

Even if Card. Newman was homosexual (which I personally doubt, but I guess there's no real way to know) that doesn't mean he'd ever engaged in homosexual acts.

So someone who, through no fault of their own, has an inclination toward this sin and spends their entire life "working out [their] own salvation in fear and trembling" can't go to Heaven because of this involuntary inclination?

Obviously committing sodomy is serious, and must be dealt with, but:  1) sodomites can repent and 2) for something to be a sin it was to be something we choose (if a man is possessed and during the possession the demon uses his body for lewd acts that man has not committed those sins, they are not on his soul if he was not in control of his body - likewise, if someone doesn't chose to be tempted, but resist temptation, then they may [read, are capable of, at least theoretically] attaining sainthood).
Reply
#37
And there's a thread about why people here are uncharitable... I have about 20 "uncharitable" things to say to posters on this thread... which for me would be an act of charity! But I won't.
Reply
#38
(10-07-2010, 05:56 AM)Benno Wrote: And there's a thread about why people here are uncharitable... I have about 20 "uncharitable" things to say to posters on this thread... which for me would be an act of charity! But I won't.

Seriously. This whole frickin' thread is about as much of an embarrassment to this forum as it can get ... and that's saying a mouthful.
Reply
#39
3 Sanctus - "Behaving effeminate, "bending," and such are obviously steps on the road to Hell"

You said it.

And you also said

"So someone who, through no fault of their own, has an inclination toward this sin and spends their entire life "working out [their] own salvation in fear and trembling" can't go to Heaven because of this involuntary inclination?".

and "for something to be a sin it was to be something we choose "

So which is it?

1) Homo's are Hellbound as Scripture and Tradition both tell us or 2) the disordered lust of Sodom is really innate and involuntary.  If the latter then you would have us, through misguided compassion, sign up to the classic LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender) scandal of

"I was Born this way, God made me this way and He LOVES me just as I am".

If its all involuntary then its not sin - so what's to repent!?!
Reply
#40
Remegius:

Having an inclination toward sin does not mean that sin is committed.  Everyone who has, is, or ever will live is inclined toward sin.  That doesn't mean we all indulge in every sin toward which we are inclined.

If someone is a sodomite (voluntarily commits sodomy), that is far different from being inclined to sodomy (have the desire, but not acting on it, not dwelling on it, not fantasizing about it, etc.).

It seems we may have different ideas about what being "inclined" towards a sin means.  I would say that someone who has the desire (on some level) to commit a sin is inclined to it, but that someone who commits the sin (in word, deed, or thought) has committed the sin - which is far worse than a simple inclination.

All adults (with very few exceptions) have some inclination toward sexual sin.  The vast majority of people have desired sexual stimulus before they are married.  If the desire remains simply an unacted-upon desire, then that's simply a matter of inclination (in the way I'm using inclination); however, if someone chooses to fantasize about relations with someone to whom they are not married or chooses to fornicate, then they have gone right past being inclined and straight into committing the sin.

As for the "I was born that way" argument, I don't really know what causes people to be attracted to people of the same gender.  I don't particularly care, and tend to only deal with it theoretically.  Is it possible it's a result of something that happens before birth?  Sure.  Is it possible it's a result of something that happens after birth, such as a psychological issue, a sociological issue, a simple disorder introduced by Satan?  Sure.  Frankly, I think all these things (and other causes) combine and most of these people have some combination of these and other factors.  That said, I don't know enough about an individual to judge what the nature of their inclination is.

That said:  I DO NOT support sodomy.  Obviously the Church teaches people who perform homosexual acts and fail to properly repent go to Hell - just like with other sins.

Also:  Please note that just because a sinful disposition/inclination/desire is not voluntarily had doesn't mean it's innate or natural - Satan spends lots of time working out ways to get us to think about things we shouldn't - for some people that ends up being sodomy, for some fornication, for some adultery, for some theft, for some lying, for some...you get the idea.

The differentiation I am making is between a desire and an act (of deed, speech, thought).  If a man is walking down the sidewalk and an attractive woman passes by him and he begins to pray to force the desire that jumped into his head to flee before his prayer to God, then he has not sinned.  If the same man saw the attractive woman and instead entertained lustful thoughts and didn't try to resist those thoughts, then he has sinned.  Does that make where I'm coming from more clear?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)