A
antihippy79
Guest
Ok. Have a nice day ma’am.
- Status
T
The_Fool
Guest
I fear I may regret stepping in, but I wish to offer an answer I think answers the original question as well as my interpretation of the question. The question asks how can a man who commits horrible crimes be called a saint. I would answer that a man is not the entirety of his sins, and is the culmination of his entire life. Does his being a saint negate any crimes he has committed in the past? No. Do his past actions prevent him from redemption in the eyes of God? No. If he is a saint, does that mean everything he did in live was wonderful and god? No.
There are other points, but I think I would just confuse the matter. Did it make sense and answer the question? Please elaborate if I failed to understand something properly.
There are other points, but I think I would just confuse the matter. Did it make sense and answer the question? Please elaborate if I failed to understand something properly.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Indeed and nicely stated. Many saints, if not all, were sinners. If the Church weighs all the facts, including miracles, etc., and deems the person a saint, then he or she is a saint. What is bound on earth…
N
nobama79
Guest
While I have followed this site for a long time and never posted or even registered for that matter I think this would be a suitable topic for my debut. I actually attended a grade school at St. Thomas More Catholic School so I think the connection is obvious here.
I think Hippy makes a very valid point as I often found myself wondering how STM could be a saint? We studied him extensively and while I would agree wikipedia is not a valid source a compelling argument has been made. The thought of ANY mass murderer converting and giving his life in the name of the church to be elevated to saint in today’s times is unimaginable. To me it is very black and white. Murder is murder and right is right, regardless of century or norm. I often had vigorous dialogue with the sisters at my school only to be admonished and told of the CC or because the church says so. I can’t and won’t accept that in matters of murder or “legalized murder”. People can repent and can be forgiven but to be elevated to saint… It’s a tough pill to swallow.
I think Hippy makes a very valid point as I often found myself wondering how STM could be a saint? We studied him extensively and while I would agree wikipedia is not a valid source a compelling argument has been made. The thought of ANY mass murderer converting and giving his life in the name of the church to be elevated to saint in today’s times is unimaginable. To me it is very black and white. Murder is murder and right is right, regardless of century or norm. I often had vigorous dialogue with the sisters at my school only to be admonished and told of the CC or because the church says so. I can’t and won’t accept that in matters of murder or “legalized murder”. People can repent and can be forgiven but to be elevated to saint… It’s a tough pill to swallow.
A
antihippy79
Guest
Maybe even Obama will be a Saint one day. If STM could be…why not?
C
Chris258
Guest
antihippy79:
I think your question does deserve better than some of the more-or-less dodgy answers you’ve received.
I am curious, though. Are you against all forms of the death penalty? Are you simply against the less ‘humane’ (I think that term is manifestly historically relative) forms of capital punishment (e.g. burning alive)?
Would you object to a declaration of sainthood of a civil leader in our era who was directly involved in the authorization of lethal injections? Electric chair? Gas chamber?
I think perhaps if I were to know your mind in this matter a little more, we might discuss this more fruitfully.
I think your question does deserve better than some of the more-or-less dodgy answers you’ve received.
I am curious, though. Are you against all forms of the death penalty? Are you simply against the less ‘humane’ (I think that term is manifestly historically relative) forms of capital punishment (e.g. burning alive)?
Would you object to a declaration of sainthood of a civil leader in our era who was directly involved in the authorization of lethal injections? Electric chair? Gas chamber?
I think perhaps if I were to know your mind in this matter a little more, we might discuss this more fruitfully.
A
antihippy79
Guest
Good questions. I do not believe the government should have the authority to kill its citizens except in cases of self defense or to stop a citizen from taking the lives of others. I also think this addresses two separate issues. Burning people alive (or any specifically barbaric act of execution/torture) in the interest of religious persecution or for so-called crimes against the crown is not the same thing as a government executing a mass murderer. I don’t like either, but the added torture of a public burning of a live man adds a particular gravity to the sin. I do not know if I would object to a modern day person being “sainted” if he were to authorize the execution of a criminal but I would definately oppose the sainting of a person who burns someone alive for preaching heresy.
P
Prophesy
Guest
I don’t understand how the Catholic Church can call St. Paul a saint.
While he was a Jewish leader he condemned and stoned St. Stephen to death.
It’s disgusting to think that someone who aided in the stoning of a child of God should be called a saint. The argument that it was a common practice at the time is ridiculous…stoning a man alive is an assault on our conscience in any time.
It should be noted that this is a joke, I’m proud of St. Paul’s sainthood, the author of numerous NT books and an exemplar of faith. Saints are not necessarily perfect, but our God is a God of forgiveness.
-Prophesy
W
wanner47
Guest
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Obama repented of his sins and began to lead a holy life – perhaps even becoming a protector of the unborn he currently pledges to kill?
It’s something I pray for regularly!
A
antihippy79
Guest
I already answered this objection, but your sarcasm must be a product of your abundant Christian charity.
A
antihippy79
Guest
The most saintly comment of the day…and I’m not being sarcastic.
C
Chris258
Guest
Evoking the example of St. Paul does not really answer the objection.
antihippy79 has already said why.
Those defending St. Thomas More’s sainthood need to realize that they are different in very substantial ways. All of us agree that Paul’s persecution and execution of Christians was sinful; and rightly Paul repented of his sins after his conversion. But St. Thomas More differs in two ways.
**
First, and perhaps more importantly, was his direct authorization of burning heretics actually sinful or not?** And if not, why is Paul’s persecution of Christians not covered over by the same arguments? He was zealously trying to vindicate his Jewish faith in the face of those attempting to subvert it by their errors – the early Christians. Is Paul’s action sinful and Thomas More’s not just because those that Paul believed to be in error actually weren’t?
Second, and how one addresses this will depend greatly on the response to the first question, St. Thomas More seemingly never repented of his authorization of burning of heretics. If his authorization of burning heretics was sinful, and he never repented of it, what are we to make of his sainthood?
antihippy79 has already said why.
Those defending St. Thomas More’s sainthood need to realize that they are different in very substantial ways. All of us agree that Paul’s persecution and execution of Christians was sinful; and rightly Paul repented of his sins after his conversion. But St. Thomas More differs in two ways.
**
First, and perhaps more importantly, was his direct authorization of burning heretics actually sinful or not?** And if not, why is Paul’s persecution of Christians not covered over by the same arguments? He was zealously trying to vindicate his Jewish faith in the face of those attempting to subvert it by their errors – the early Christians. Is Paul’s action sinful and Thomas More’s not just because those that Paul believed to be in error actually weren’t?
Second, and how one addresses this will depend greatly on the response to the first question, St. Thomas More seemingly never repented of his authorization of burning of heretics. If his authorization of burning heretics was sinful, and he never repented of it, what are we to make of his sainthood?
A
antihippy79
Guest
Finally someone who gets what I am trying to say! Paul and STM are not in the same league! STM’s actions were sinful and there is zero evidence he repented and yet we pray to a man who purposefully incinerated other people. I find it creepy.
T
The_Fool
Guest
I rather thought a number of answers provided addressed the issue, although I can understand how this entire thread became confusing as soon as Paul was mentioned. Please note, my response does not mention Paul because Paul doesn’t matter.
I understand your standpoint, and I understand the difficulty. I suppose the question that needs to be asked is “is the Church infallible when it talks about why someone is a saint?”.
I accept that Thomas Moore is in heaven, but I usually don’t bother with the why declared saints are there too often. I’m rather lazy like that, which you clearly are not. The only answer I can provide then is that the Church has said he is in heaven. All I can do is accept that and marvel that even a man of great sin can find mercy from above. Now, if someone can tell me if the Church ever says why someone is up there, I might be able to provide a more definite answer, but as far as I know we only really know where they are, not why they’re there. I know, the answer isn’t helpful, but it’s all I can offer without more information.
On another note, wikipedia’sshudder “Historical process of beatification and canonization” has a subheading for martyrs. If I am reading it correctly, reputation is not regarded for martyrs, which may explain our present situation.
Please correct me if I’ve made any mistakes in understanding or presentation.
G
GEddie
Guest
Many were not, if the rope tied to their neck burnt before being used.
It is said that even without strangulation, one would perish by the smoke rising around their head before the flames reached their body.
Indeed. Deliberately ending a human being’s life is always ultimately cruel, whatever the method of doing so. And yet the Catholic Church does not categorically condemn it.
God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
I would like to comment on this.
Since confession is usually done orally (not written), it would be very hard, if not impossible to document St. Thomas More’s confession. I would like to think it would be obvious to everyone who is sincerely trying to understand that if STM was willing to die a martyr’s death, his sincerity towards Catholic teaching was clear. Would it make any difference to you if STM was told by his Priest or Bishop that public executions of heretics were morally justified? Consider Calvary, Jesus was crucified with 2 thieves. Surely you don’t think that stealing today should EVER be a death penalty offense and yet what did Jesus say about that? When the good thief said that their death was just, Jesus never corrected him.
But I find it ludicrous that some people are trying to justify St. Paul’s stoning’s as somehow morally justifiable.
G
GEddie
Guest
Because there would have been been no point.
We don’t really know that stealing was all these men did; Roman robbers often strangled their victims.
But even if they were guilty of nothing but stealing, it doesn’t really help to tell someone who can’t breathe, “You shouldn’t be dying, but there’s nothing to be done.” Much better, in effect, to tell him that a better life would be restored to him.
ICXC NIKA
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Another point to consider.
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met.
First, it must be grave matter. Well, certainly ‘killing’ is grave matter.
Second, it must be freely consented to. It does appear that St. Thomas did freely (if reluctantly) consent.
Third–and this is important–the person must have full knowledge that what he is doing is gravely sinful.
DID St. Thomas More consider that his actions in regard to the four people who were executed as heretics while he was Chancellor were mortally sinful?
IF he did not consider them to be mortal sins, then he himself could not have been guilty of mortal sin, correct? Because the necessary conditions for mortal sin could not be met if he did not believe what he did was wrong.
Now obviously, IF this was mortal sin, it didn’t ‘stop’ being mortal sin because he didn’t believe it was. So he would be culpable to a degree. But it would be a venial degree, not a mortal degree. I mean, this is basic Catholic teaching.
If St. Thomas More (as is extremely likely considering the culture in which he lived) felt that the state had the right and obligation to take any steps, including a death penalty, provided the trial was ‘fair’, in order to deal with any crime (including heresy), then St. Thomas would have, despite his personal sadness in seeing a person remain obstinant in heresy, carried out his legal duty and would not have seen it as sinful.
**If he did not see his actions as sinful, he could not have sinned mortally in doing what he did. **
And if he had no mortal sins on his soul, why couldn’t he be a saint?
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met.
First, it must be grave matter. Well, certainly ‘killing’ is grave matter.
Second, it must be freely consented to. It does appear that St. Thomas did freely (if reluctantly) consent.
Third–and this is important–the person must have full knowledge that what he is doing is gravely sinful.
DID St. Thomas More consider that his actions in regard to the four people who were executed as heretics while he was Chancellor were mortally sinful?
IF he did not consider them to be mortal sins, then he himself could not have been guilty of mortal sin, correct? Because the necessary conditions for mortal sin could not be met if he did not believe what he did was wrong.
Now obviously, IF this was mortal sin, it didn’t ‘stop’ being mortal sin because he didn’t believe it was. So he would be culpable to a degree. But it would be a venial degree, not a mortal degree. I mean, this is basic Catholic teaching.
If St. Thomas More (as is extremely likely considering the culture in which he lived) felt that the state had the right and obligation to take any steps, including a death penalty, provided the trial was ‘fair’, in order to deal with any crime (including heresy), then St. Thomas would have, despite his personal sadness in seeing a person remain obstinant in heresy, carried out his legal duty and would not have seen it as sinful.
**If he did not see his actions as sinful, he could not have sinned mortally in doing what he did. **
And if he had no mortal sins on his soul, why couldn’t he be a saint?
A
Adam1986
Guest
Anyone can be a saint no matter how evil they live their life; AS LONG AS THEY REPENT before they die. So if he was responsible for murders AND repented then there’s no reason for him not to be saved.
D
ddarko
Guest
This might not be related but just to set something clear though, Saints are sinners and not PERFECT people apart from Mother Mary. Take St. Augustine for an example. He was a Hedonist for a large part of his life. But he converted and became a Doctor of the Church.
Similarly, even in the case of Thomas Moore, he gave his life for the TRUTH i.e his faithfulness to Rome and his refusal to accept a false annulment. That is indeed an act worthy of sainthood which I am sure you would agree
God Bless
- Status