Fr Thomas Merton Purged From Catechism

[Jerusha]

In that time, if there hadn’t been voices like Thomas Merton’s and Dorothy Day’s, the American Catholic Church would have fallen much more under the sway of Couglin’s voice. Would you rather that have happened?

When social justice is called liberal left, what becomes “right”?

 

[fix]

otm:

Because he, like many of the great saints and writers in the Church were contrioversial in their times?

Is controversy now the standard?

 

[fix]

mlchance:

Thomas Merton died in 1968. Charity demands I assume he died in a state of grace. That makes him a saint, even if the Church hasn’t declared him a Saint.

– Mark L. Chance.

Are you now canonizing people?

 

[fix]

mlchance:

Better to use someone like Saint Augustine. No baggage there.



– Mark L. Chance.

An apt analogy? I think not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mlchance:

Thomas Merton died in 1968. Charity demands I assume he died in a state of grace. That makes him a saint, even if the Church hasn’t declared him a Saint.

– Mark L. Chance.

Actually while charity does demand that we assume he died in a state of grace, not everyone who dies in a state of grace goes directly to Heaven. The determination of sainthood means that they are in Heaven. Something totally different.

 

[fix]

Digitonomy:

This is a limited view of what a catechism can be. For me, the CCC is just fine. But for those buying the catechism in the OP, they apparently want a more specialized book.

A catechism could conceivably be published using quotes from Shakespeare, or Ben Franklin, or whoever, as its sole source illustrating the principles of the Catholic faith. Certainly the lives of these individuals are not especially saintly, but the relevant material quoted must adhere to the Faith - or I suppose it could be used in a negative way, illustrating an error on the part of the speaker in his interpretation of morality.

Is not a large purpose of the CCC to instruct in the faith? With so many Catholics unfamiliar with their heritage and faith, why not use solidly and universally accepted Catholic figures?

 

[Digitonomy]

fix:

Is not a large purpose of the CCC to instruct in the faith? With so many Catholics unfamiliar with their heritage and faith, why not use solidly and universally accepted Catholic figures?

I would think a large purpose of any catechism would be to instruct in the faith. I think using solidly accepted Catholic figures would be good choice for the CCC, and I while I haven’t reviewed their editorial policy, I suspect that’s what they’ve done.

As to why someone would want to publish a different catechism from the CCC I’m not sure - I suppose one for kids would be a natural. I don’t know what the logic is behind the catechism being discussed in this thread. But whatever the reasons chosen, it could certainly be a ligitimate approach to use non-Catholic sources to illustrate the truths of the Faith.

 

[mlchance]

ByzCath:

Actually while charity does demand that we assume he died in a state of grace, not everyone who dies in a state of grace goes directly to Heaven. The determination of sainthood means that they are in Heaven. Something totally different.

Not so. The communion of saints includes those in Purgatory as well as those faithful here on Earth:

CCC 1475 (see also 1479): In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

The Church herself is “a communion of saints” (CCC 960). I’m a saint. You’re a saint. We just aren’t Saints (although, with God’s grace, either us could be one day).

Thomas Merton died in a state of grace; therefore, he is a saint in the same sense as any member of the Body of Christ.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mlchance:

Not so. The communion of saints includes those in Purgatory as well as those faithful here on Earth:

CCC 1475 (see also 1479): In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

The Church herself is “a communion of saints” (CCC 960). I’m a saint. You’re a saint. We just aren’t Saints (although, with God’s grace, either us could be one day).

Thomas Merton died in a state of grace; therefore, he is a saint in the same sense as any member of the Body of Christ.

– Mark L. Chance.

That is correct, the communion of saints does so. But that does not change the fact that he is not a Saint and given the fact that his writings were displaced by the writings of a Saint, one that we know for a fact is in Heaven, I not only see nothing wrong with it but I totally agree with it.

And I was thinking on the idea you put forward that we must, in charity, think that he died in grace. I am not so sure that is required of us, not that I do not agree with it in this case.

 

[mlchance]

ByzCath:

That is correct, the communion of saints does so. But that does not change the fact that he is not a Saint and given the fact that his writings were displaced by the writings of a Saint, one that we know for a fact is in Heaven, I not only see nothing wrong with it but I totally agree with it.

Ah, but I didn’t claim he was a Saint. I claimed he was a saint, as all are who are members of the Body of Christ. That he has not been canonized (and isn’t likely to ever be canonized) isn’t a strike against him, even if it is a point in favor of someone else (such as Saint Augustine of Hippo). The CCC itself includes many quotes from documents penned by the uncanonized (as should be obvious, since the CCC itself is a document penned by the uncanonized).

That some of Merton’s writings are seen as controversial is also not a point against him. The Apostle Paul is controversial. Christ Jesus is controversial.

That some of Merton’s writings may have been used to further agendas contrary to Church teaching is also not a strike against him. If that were the case, Saint Augustine of Hippo would have to be ignored almost entirely. Heck, so would Scripture itself.

If Merton wrote something well that expresses the truth of Catholic teaching, there is no reason not to use that writing. Of course, there also isn’t any reason to use that writing.

IOW, this is merely an editorial decision.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[pnewton]

Being quoted in the catechism is not an earmark of sanctity and not being quoted is not a condemnation. There are many writings we are free to embrace, or not. “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” is a great book, even though it’s author is not quoted once in the CCC and may not be a canonized Saint. Thomas Merton has been an influence in many lives today and contributed to the monastic movement. Any action by the Bishops will not change his status before God, for good or evil.

“I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.
And I hope that I have that desire in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.”

from “Thoughts in Solitude” by Thomas Merton.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

fix:

Good. With all the great saints and writers in the church why do we need to bring in a controversial figure like this?

Such as Paul, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Aquinas, Scotus, for example ? So was Jeremiah. Amos rubbed people up the wrong way too. John of the Cross, Ignatius Loyola, Teresa of Avila, St. Philip Neri, St. Alphonsus Liguori, all got on the wrong side of Church authorities, and all were persecuted by the Church which was unworthy of them.​

I almost forgot - Jesus was pretty controversial.

This was very well said, I thought: “I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further. So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot ‘affirm’ and ‘accept,’ but first one must say ‘yes’ where one really can. If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.”

Samuel Taylor Coleridge would have agreed - as he pointed out, the man who ends by loving only his own religious group, ends by loving himself. Conservatism, when taken far enough, is just another form of self-love, closed in on itself. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Digitonomy:

I would think a large purpose of any catechism would be to instruct in the faith. I think using solidly accepted Catholic figures would be good choice for the CCC, and I while I haven’t reviewed their editorial policy, I suspect that’s what they’ve done.

As to why someone would want to publish a different catechism from the CCC I’m not sure - I suppose one for kids would be a natural. I don’t know what the logic is behind the catechism being discussed in this thread. But whatever the reasons chosen, it could certainly be a ligitimate approach to use non-Catholic sources to illustrate the truths of the Faith.

The stuff preceding the text of the CCC proper expresses the desire that there will be adaptations of it. It was never intended to be the only or the final catechism.​

Non-Catholic sources are frequently quoted in theology - look at St.Thomas and the Summa Theologiae The CCC quotes a few non-Catholics, such as Symeon “the new theologian”

I would quote, but my browser is playing up ##

 

[mlchance]

You did okay up to here:
Gottle of Geer:

Conservatism, when taken far enough, is just another form of self-love, closed in on itself.

Conversatism taken that far isn’t conservatism. It is modern day liberalism which worships man as the measure of all things.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[otm]

ByzCath:

But the fact is that he is not a saint.

Catechisms should favor writings of saints over non-saints.

Neither were most of the saints shortly after their death.

Favoring is fine; but that doesn’t necessarily mean exclusion.

 

[otm]

mlchance:

Either that, or you don’t understand things like irony, sarcasm, and emoticons when you see them. Smart money wouldn’t bet on the former.

– Mark L. Chance.

Sorry, I forgot you tended to the tongue in cheek. Do understand them. Missed it.

 

[otm]

fix:

Is controversy now the standard?

I don’t see any standard in particular; although it would seem that a standard is being posited, to wit: non-controversial. I was simply pointing out that since that seemed to be posited, and that we turn to the non controversial, and to the saints, that those positing the standard keep in mind that those they were proposing did not all fit their standard.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

otm:

I don’t see any standard in particular; although it would seem that a standard is being posited, to wit: non-controversial. I was simply pointing out that since that seemed to be posited, and that we turn to the non controversial, and to the saints, that those positing the standard keep in mind that those they were proposing did not all fit their standard.

Maybe those who put forward that particular standard do not veiw the writings of Saints as controversial. Maybe they see the fact that these are Saints that this somehow negates some of the controversial aspects that some may see in their writings.

 

[fix]

## Such as Paul, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Aquinas, Scotus, for example ? So was Jeremiah. Amos rubbed people up the wrong way too. John of the Cross, Ignatius Loyola, Teresa of Avila, St. Philip Neri, St. Alphonsus Liguori, all got on the wrong side of Church authorities, and all were persecuted by the Church which was unworthy of them.

I almost forgot - Jesus was pretty controversial.

This was very well said, I thought: “I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further. So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot ‘affirm’ and ‘accept,’ but first one must say ‘yes’ where one really can. If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.”

Samuel Taylor Coleridge would have agreed - as he pointed out, the man who ends by loving only his own religious group, ends by loving himself. Conservatism, when taken far enough, is just another form of self-love, closed in on itself. ##

We should define what we mean by controversial, before making silly arguments.

Christ is not controversial in the sense we are speaking about. The well known saints and their contributions to the faith are not controversial in the sense we are speaking of. Merton is controversial and I am glad he is being excluded.

 

[pnewton]

What specifically has Thomas Merton said that is controversial, in the sense it is heretical or dissenting? Does anyone know of anything?