B
Bonnie
Guest
Thanks for saying that. I’ve said it often enough I thought I’d give someone else a chance to say it.
- Status
M
MomaMary8
Guest
Thank you, Robyn. I often reflect on the Holy Innocents, but too often I get engulfed in the horror of the moment in seeing those poor innocents slaughtered and then I see/feel the grief of the parents. It’s hard for me to reflect too long.You’re right that the Church has no definitive teaching, except to trust in God. But I was thinking of the Holy Innocents, who were murdered before being baptized, and yet the Church believes are in heaven as saints. Also what St. Bernard of Clairveaux said to parents whose child died in the womb:
“Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.”
This obviously is only one saint’s opinion, but there are other saints who say the same thing. Again all this isn’t official teaching, we don’t know for sure what happens. But I think there are good reasons to believe unborn children, especially aborted children who are today’s Holy Innocents, are in heaven.
My point in my post though was simply that in God all things - even our most heinous sins - are healed and made right. The evil of abortion does not have the last word, and it is so important to remember that and not fall into despair.
That said, I want to make clear it’s good that you feel so much emotion at the thought of an aborted child. What happens to them is evil. But those children are also not still in pain. They are with God and have no bitterness towards their parents. And they wouldn’t want us to have any bitterness towards them either, especially if said parent converted and spent the rest of her time on earth defending all life like Dorothy Day did.
At Mass, I prayed for Dorothy Day. To have her in Heaven would be wonderful, as it would be wonderful to have all souls reach Heaven. I can’t say that I will be able to read about her life, though. I do hope she made amends on Earth before she died, as I hope we all do.
I was reading recently in a book of Visions from Purgatory and a comment struck me as profound in this Year of Mercy. It was noted in the book at the surprise of seeing who was and was not saved. Those who many thought were bound for Heaven did not make it, those who many thought were condemned were enjoying the beatific Vision. One soul whom no one prayed for was begging for prayers to help her reach Heaven. Everyone was certain she was in Heaven so they had stopped praying for her. We will have to wait to see all who have made it to Heaven. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Reading this thread of Dorothy Day has reminded me to Trust more in God’s Mercy. I have a long way to go…
But in reading your words, I was reminded of a meditation that I often turned to, and need to turn to again. It had to do with the Jesus descending “into Hell.” He released those souls trapped between Heaven and Hell and open the gates to Heaven for them. This gives me comfort to know that God works outside of Baptism when required. The thought of so many killed without the chance to learn to grow in God’s love…so sad.
B
Bonnie
Guest
If you did read about her life, you would see that her entire life after her conversion was one of penance.
J
JPUSC
Guest
We are not bound by a canonization either.
The proclamation of a person’s sainthood is not a truth of faith because it is not a dogmatic definition and is not directly or explicitly linked to a truth of faith or a moral truth contained in the revelation, but is only indirectly linked to this. It is no coincidence that neither the Code of Canon Law of 1917 nor the one currently in force, nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church present the Church’s doctrine regarding canonizations.”
lastampa.it/2014/07/10/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/are-canonizations-infallible-r2aK5PypZe95tWoFf53v8K/pagina.html
J
J_Peterson
Guest
That’s interesting, I never thought about that. It would seem that proclaiming that a person is in Heaven is a revelation and since public revelation is over, it must be private. From that interview it looks like it is something that is being debated though (I didn’t understand a lot of what he said though, a bit over my head).
M
MomaMary8
Guest
Perhaps. Maybe someday.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
I’m afraid that link that JPUSC has is mistaken. Canonizations do fall under papal infallibility:
New Catholic Encyclopedia:
So actually, the faithful are bound to accept canonizations. They are not in the same category as private revelations.
P
powerofk
Guest
Right. Canonizations are in the same category as ex cathedra declarations: once declared, they are binding on all and cannot be revoked, but before such declaration may be up for debate.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Are Canonizations Infallible? Yes and No
Posted by Pat Archbold on Thursday Apr 17th, 2014 at 10:48 AM
The discussion around the infallibility of canonizations comes up from time to time, and with the approaching canonizations of Popes John Paul II and John XXIII we see it naturally being revisited.
Particularly with the lives of Popes, there is always elements of the exercise of the Office or personality that people can reasonably critique. This is true of everyone, but more so with such prominent public figures.
I will not go into the details of any of these criticisms for the above mentioned as any such thing is debatable at best and tangential to my point.
The question is whether canonization is an infallible act and if so, how can it be that people who perhaps did questionable things and perhaps even have exercised demonstrably poor judgment be canonized? It is a good question. I think I have an answer.
Let me stipulate that this is my own personal interpretation of such decrees and in no way do I represent this as Church teaching, although I don’t think it contradicts Church teaching in any way. This is for discussion purposes.
I think that a canonization conveys two elements:
- The person is in heaven.
- The person lived a heroic life of virtue for their state in life and is to be emulated.
So yes, in this respect I think it is impossible for the Church to err with respect to the individual being in Heaven.
I think element 2 is prudential judgement and subject to possible error.
It is entirely possible for someone who made many mistakes in life to be in heaven. Even the greatest saints have aspects of their humanity the are probably best not to emulate. We have had saints that have struggled with bad tempers. We have had saints that were chronic overeaters, such as the above mentioned Aquinas. In fact every saint has had his or her foibles, for saintliness and human perfection are not equivalent. Obviously, the Church is not saying it is perfectly fine to be an ill-tempered glutton by virtue of these canonizations. So it is that I see element two as being subject to error, at least in small degree.
So it is that I have no particular issue with the declaration of this or that person being declared a saint even if I hold element 2 to be suspect in some areas of their life. Actually I am glad of it, it gives me hope.
What do you think?
ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/are-canonizations-infallible-yes-and-no
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
If Dorothy Day is canonized, that will be the last straw for me.
Pope Francis has been doing his best to pander to the Left and undercut anyone who believes in Libertarian and/or Conservative philosophies.
Apparently a socialist who murdered her kid and defended tyrants in both Cuba and China can be a saint but a guy who has little interest in living for others but does not demand that they live for him is a terrible person.
Abortion is supposed to be a “selfish choice”, yet the altruist who is a candidate for sainthood had one.
Pope Francis has been doing his best to pander to the Left and undercut anyone who believes in Libertarian and/or Conservative philosophies.
Apparently a socialist who murdered her kid and defended tyrants in both Cuba and China can be a saint but a guy who has little interest in living for others but does not demand that they live for him is a terrible person.
Abortion is supposed to be a “selfish choice”, yet the altruist who is a candidate for sainthood had one.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Amen.
Emma Bonino, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders being honored by the Pope and the Vatican was the last straw for me.
P
powerofk
Guest
Read earlier in the thread. Dorothy Day’s abortion was before her conversion. If one wishes to condemn someone for something that he/she did before being baptised, then that person does not believe in the saving power of baptism, which relies on the mercy of God. At baptism, all of one’s sins are washed away, along with all punishment (eternal and temporal) that one’s sins deserve. Does it make her abortion right? No. But there are plenty of saints who committed multitudes of sins before and even after their conversions! Seriously - St. Augustine was a womanizer and had many children out of wedlock (at the minimum). And, just like St. Augustine and his confessions, no one would have known that Day had had an abortion except the fact that she admitted it and admitted life-long remorse for her action. In fact, if she is eventually canonized, she would be a perfect candidate to be the patron saint of post-abortive men and women.
Regardless, Day was declared a “Servant of God” not by Pope Francis, but by Pope Paul VI. As such, she has had her cause open for sainthood for over 40 years.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Which shows you didn’t read the thread and know next to nothing about Dorothy Day…
Last straw how? What, you’ll leave the Church? You do know that Popes of the past condemned capitalism as well, right?
B
Bonnie
Guest
Some people are reading only what they agree with, and that includes the history of the Church. One of the first saints, St. Paul, had the blood of Christians on his hands.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Wrong, I read my Sun Tzu and I make sure to know my enemies.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day
While Day gave some lip service against Communism, her hatred for capitalism, her acceptance of both collectivism and altruism, and her moral equivocation of dictatorships and freer countries during WWII shows just where she stood.
My point about the abortion stands regardless of whether or not she felt bad about it afterward. Her feelings did not bring the kid back. It does show the reality of the altruistic ideal. I advocate for rational self interest yet I oppose abortion. She taught that other people have rights to food, clothing, and shelter yet took that all away from her child.
While the Catholic Church opposes unregulated capitalism as per Rerum Novarum, this is a strawman for 2 reasons.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day
While Day gave some lip service against Communism, her hatred for capitalism, her acceptance of both collectivism and altruism, and her moral equivocation of dictatorships and freer countries during WWII shows just where she stood.
My point about the abortion stands regardless of whether or not she felt bad about it afterward. Her feelings did not bring the kid back. It does show the reality of the altruistic ideal. I advocate for rational self interest yet I oppose abortion. She taught that other people have rights to food, clothing, and shelter yet took that all away from her child.
While the Catholic Church opposes unregulated capitalism as per Rerum Novarum, this is a strawman for 2 reasons.
- Unregulated capitalism did not exist at the time that Rerum Novarum was written.
- Capitalism is self-regulating.
B
Bonnie
Guest
If the Catholic Church changed its stance on forgiveness for sins, that would be the last straw for me. If sin could not be forgiven, then I would know I was in the wrong Church.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Um. I’m not really seeing how this contradicts what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about canonizations…it seems to be in agreement.
Maybe I’m missing something though.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Wow, where to start with this? Enemy? For pete’s sake, man, she is a human being and your fellow Catholic. As others have addressed, you are neglecting if not outright distorting the Church’s doctrine on forgiveness. St Paul martyred Christians, etc. This is the really worrying part about what you wrote. The rest of this is political (if at times philosophical) debate.
As for the less important stuff, your entire language betrays your acceptance of Randian philosophy (as per your signature). She didn’t accept collectivism and altruism as, for instance, Fr. Hardon defines them in the Catholic Dictionary. But in Randian terms, she did. The problem is with your acceptance of Rand’s terminology. Under her definition, Jesus was a collectivist and an altruist. Do you really wanna go down that territory?
As far as Rerum Novarum, you’re basically saying that Pope Leo XXIII didn’t know what he was speaking about because of your two points. Unregulated capitalism is a historical myth. A pure free market has never existed, except in small instances hard to find in conventional history. The big business supermen Rand idolized were the product of state intervention in the market, which the ‘heroic’ corporations were anything but hesitant to accept. Rugged individualism is a myth.
As for capitalism being self-regulating, that is one economic concept among many. Even if it were, well, just read Rerum Novarum. It obviously isn’t self-regulating enough, if it is at all.
Finally… Rand’s philosophy. It has it’s roots in less than Catholic philosophy, and it’s more logically consistent cousin is that of Max Stirner, who had the intellectual bravery (one may call it) to go where she didn’t: the eradication of morality completely, leaving only the individual ego.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I was making a reference to Sun Tzu. While Dorothy Day certainly poses no physical danger, she remains a very dangerous intellectual opponent.
I typically avoid putting Jesus in any sort of philosophical box. That argument does more harm than good and derails whatever discussion is going on.
So what?
My point exactly. It is worth noting however, that one of the greatest periods of prosperity happened during the first 100 years of America which is when society was very close to a truly free market, especially in comparison to the unfree market we have today.
That is a strawman. Rand despised crony capitalists. They were some of the worst villains in her novels and rightly so. Individualism is not a myth. Your life belongs to you, and the good is to live it. There is no collective brain, or free will.
. Capitalism is self-regulating because it runs on free choice. Every decision you make with your dollars and your choice of work affects the economy. Case in point, the sudden drop of Target’s stock after they chose to stick their nose into politics.
Why is it that everybody who disagrees with Rand eventually uses this false dichotomy? There is an alternative between living for solely for the sake of others and making them live for me, between the cannibal and the holocaust, between the slave and the tyrant, and between sadism and masochism. Max Stirner was a nihilist both ethically and epistemologically . Rand refuted both of those concepts.
P
PPeterson
Guest
Longtime Dorothy fan here. She doesn’t fit that neatly into boxes. While it’s true that her abortion occurred before her conversion to Catholicism, it is also true that as a child she was quite religious and used to play at being a saint. As a tween/early teen she wrote pious letters to her friend describing her religious sentiments. The abortion and communist shenanigans occurred in what is probably more accurately described as a sort of “falling away” than a completely unchurched state. It was even remarked by someone who knew her in her supposedly atheist communist days that she was never really a good communist because she was always too religious. Politically, she was also always more of an anarchist than a communist.
There is no question that she completely changed her life after becoming Catholic. She embraced voluntary poverty much like St. Francis, and based her community on monastic ideals of hospitality and prayer. She prayed all the time, did much of her writing in the presence of the blessed sacrament, and performed so many charitable works it boggles the mind. She became, as she explained, a Catholic of the orthodox variety down to her “fingertips.”
That said, she never really shook the weak spot she had for leftist and intellectual silliness. She was given to making pretentious statements such as insisting you couldn’t understand her movement without understanding Dostoevsky. While her pacifism was explicitly tied to her commitment to Catholicism, it’s pretty hard to ignore that she also enjoyed being a counter cultural rebel, and was searching for a Catholic way to do this.
I think that if she were still around to talk, she would probably freely admit that she never outgrew trying to be cool, and that this legacy has negatively impacted her movement.
Dorothy was amazing, and the average Catholics could probably become the holiest person any one he/she knows by committing him/herself to 1/10th of the daily prayer and works of mercy she practiced. Even so, I wouldn’t want her to be canonized anytime soon. Her legacy and political aura is a little too much of a mixed bag. She was a strong voice for peace, and was willing to face public derision and jail time to promote pacifism. However she was doing this at time when men from her country were paying with their lives to stop Hitler. And no, she wasn’t going over to Germany to protest the third Reich.
She started a movement that has helped, and continues to help many people in need. That said, there continues to be an element of “too cool for school” radical first catholic second, or maybe not at all in the Catholic Worker movement. Dorothy asked that people not “trivialize” her by making her a saint, which aptly captures her largest blindspot. Tellingly, she didn’t say “don’t trivialize me by calling me a radical,” or “by saying I was an intellectual.”
I hope she does get the canonization nod, but not for another 400 years, so the parts of her life that were actually “trivial” have had time to fade. It’s pretty unfortunate that we’ve gotten into the habit of canonizing non-martyrs so quickly after their deaths. It makes it harder to weigh the essential, and non essential parts of their stories. It also politicizes their Christian witness, and leads people to be easily confused by where the saint ends and the human begins. Now we have to look at Mother Theresa’s uncomfortable memoirs through a “saints” lens. It’s much harder to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of kissing Korans, staging rockstar spectacles, special female penpals, and whether every single word that came from the pen of the late pontiff was unqualified genius now that the Saint label was applied to JPII right after his death. I believe both are in heaven, and also that the rapid canonization was a terrible idea. I don’t think we should do the same thing with Dorothy.
There is no question that she completely changed her life after becoming Catholic. She embraced voluntary poverty much like St. Francis, and based her community on monastic ideals of hospitality and prayer. She prayed all the time, did much of her writing in the presence of the blessed sacrament, and performed so many charitable works it boggles the mind. She became, as she explained, a Catholic of the orthodox variety down to her “fingertips.”
That said, she never really shook the weak spot she had for leftist and intellectual silliness. She was given to making pretentious statements such as insisting you couldn’t understand her movement without understanding Dostoevsky. While her pacifism was explicitly tied to her commitment to Catholicism, it’s pretty hard to ignore that she also enjoyed being a counter cultural rebel, and was searching for a Catholic way to do this.
I think that if she were still around to talk, she would probably freely admit that she never outgrew trying to be cool, and that this legacy has negatively impacted her movement.
Dorothy was amazing, and the average Catholics could probably become the holiest person any one he/she knows by committing him/herself to 1/10th of the daily prayer and works of mercy she practiced. Even so, I wouldn’t want her to be canonized anytime soon. Her legacy and political aura is a little too much of a mixed bag. She was a strong voice for peace, and was willing to face public derision and jail time to promote pacifism. However she was doing this at time when men from her country were paying with their lives to stop Hitler. And no, she wasn’t going over to Germany to protest the third Reich.
She started a movement that has helped, and continues to help many people in need. That said, there continues to be an element of “too cool for school” radical first catholic second, or maybe not at all in the Catholic Worker movement. Dorothy asked that people not “trivialize” her by making her a saint, which aptly captures her largest blindspot. Tellingly, she didn’t say “don’t trivialize me by calling me a radical,” or “by saying I was an intellectual.”
I hope she does get the canonization nod, but not for another 400 years, so the parts of her life that were actually “trivial” have had time to fade. It’s pretty unfortunate that we’ve gotten into the habit of canonizing non-martyrs so quickly after their deaths. It makes it harder to weigh the essential, and non essential parts of their stories. It also politicizes their Christian witness, and leads people to be easily confused by where the saint ends and the human begins. Now we have to look at Mother Theresa’s uncomfortable memoirs through a “saints” lens. It’s much harder to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of kissing Korans, staging rockstar spectacles, special female penpals, and whether every single word that came from the pen of the late pontiff was unqualified genius now that the Saint label was applied to JPII right after his death. I believe both are in heaven, and also that the rapid canonization was a terrible idea. I don’t think we should do the same thing with Dorothy.
- Status