Immoral to Play Chess? Yes, according to St. Peter Damian

[thistle]

Yes, but a saint’s views shouldn’t be dismissed this way.

Not so. St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
We may not dismiss the teachings of the Church but we certainly do not have to accept or take in everything the saints said. They were not infallible.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Gambling:

You left out the part where this Saint introduced the practice of flagellation as a form of penance in his monestary!
I seriously doubt that St. Peter Damian became a Saint or was named a Doctor of the Church because he disliked chess (or other forms of amusement) and espoused flagellation.
As I said before, you are seriously in error, especially with your references to gambling. Playing Chess has nothing to do with gambling or risk taking. Winning at chess is a matter of skill, not chance.
I think that St. Damian was opposed to chess because he was a religious zealot who felt that all human beings should spend all of an individuals leasure time in prayer. He believed that anything that wasn’t a part of atoning for ones sins or adoration of the Lord was wasting time and therefore sinful.
Enough Said!

 

[Geremia]

St. Francis de Sales writes, in his "Chapter XXXI. Of Amusements and Recreations: what are allowable"Introduction to the Devout Life, that

games of skill, which exercise and strengthen body or mind, such as tennis, rackets, running at the ring, chess, and the like, are in themselves both lawful and good. Only one must avoid excess, either in the time given to them, or the amount of interest they absorb; for if too much time be given up to such things, they cease to be a recreation and become an occupation; and so far from resting and restoring mind or body, they have precisely the contrary effect.

So, although St. Peter Damian may have thought chess was a game of chance, he was probably more upset that that bishop was wasting his time and possibly giving scandal to others that he was gambling.

 

[LilyM]

That’s a myth. St. Thomas certainly did believe it, although he struggled explaining it.Although the dogma was defined relatively recently, does that mean one could believe otherwise before its definition and remain a faithful Catholic?

Of course. How can one be wrong for not believing a thing when the Church hasn’t said definitively that you must believe it? Would a child be wrong for not believing that e=mc2 when that child had not read or heard anything authoritative (eg from a science textbook or science teacher) saying as much?

 

[Khalid]

Not so. St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
We may not dismiss the teachings of the Church but we certainly do not have to accept or take in everything the saints said. They were not infallible.

Thistle is correct. St Thomas either did not believe it, or at least wrote as if he didn’t believe it. Duns Scotus (from whence the word “dunce” derives, although I think it would have been much better to call idiots “Ockhams”, as Ockham was an idiot - the West’s stepchild of Ghazali - more so than Scotus) has been the theologian most used to give its explanation in the Church documents, and in the pronunciation of the dogma.

In this one case, Scotus elucidated correctly the faith of the Church, and formed it on this matter for years to come; in this one thing, he was the superior of Thomas Aquinas, if not in method, if not in intellect, in his results.

 

[Qoeleth]

That makes sense; he didn’t want effeminate priests.

I totally agree with you, and St. Nicholas. It is a very unpopular opinion, though, extremely unpopular, in fact…

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Which St. Damian are you talking about? The one from the 3rd Century, or the Hawaiian one? Your premise is absolute nonsense and foll-do-rol! Saints are human and as such can be in error about mundane things, such as pastimes.
Like it or not, many of our saints would be considered fanatics today, just as are the Puritans of early Colonial America.
Some Saints considered any human pastime other than prayer and the adoration of G*d to be bordering on sin. Others were much more practical- like St. Francis Xavior, St. Ignatius Loyola (who created what is now know as modern theater) and St. John Bosco, who realized that young boys needed recreation in order to delovelope into healthy adult males .
Your premise, maybe historically accurate-I don’t know- but it puts you outside the teaching of the contemporary Catholic Church- and puts you in the camp of the fanatics, not the saints.

The OP clearly cites St. Peter Damien. The “leper priest” of Hawaii is St. Damien deVesteur of Molokai.

 

[Geremia]

Not so. St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Again, why are you so quick to gainsay this great doctor of the Church? Even among great theologians there are varying opinions about this, so, because of this doubt, we should err on the side of not demeaning such a great doctor of the Church than on the side of considering him less faithful than he was. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., writes in his ch. 37 MariologyReality:

1. St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception Was St. Thomas in favor of granting to Mary the privilege of the Immaculate Conception? Many theologians, including Dominicans 852 S, Capponi a Porrecta (died 1614): John of St. Thomas (died 1644): Curs. theol.: Spada, Rouart de Card, Berthier; in our days N. del Prado, Divus Thomas et bulla init. ; De approbatione doctrinae S. Thomae, d. II, a. 2; Noel Alexander; more recently, Ineffabilis Deus, 1919; Th. Pegues, Rev. thom.: 1909, pp. 83-87; E. Hugon, op. cit.: p. 748, p. Lumbreras, Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception, 1923; C. Frietoff, “Quomodo caro B. M. V. in peccato originali concepta fuerit” in Angelicum, 1933, pp. 32144; J. M. Voste, Comment. in III p. Summae theol. s. Thomae; De mysteriis vitae Christi, 2nd ed.: 1940, pp. 13-20] and Jesuits, Perrone, Palmieri, Hurter, Cornoldi] say Yes. Many others say No. Among them we note: Suarez, Chr. Pesch.: I. Billot, I. Jannsens, Al. Lepicier, B. H. Merkelbach, op. cit.: pp. 127-30] We hold, as solidly probable, the position that St. Thomas hesitated on this question. This view, already proposed by many Thomists, is defended by Mandonnet, Dict… de theol. cath.: s. v. Freres Precheurs] and by N. del Prado, E. Hugon, G. Frietoff, and J. M. Voste. See note 23.]

We may not dismiss the teachings of the Church but we certainly do not have to accept or take in everything the saints said. They were not infallible.

Yes, but they have more authority than the average Joe on the street by the very fact they are saints, so we should not dismiss what they say so easily.

 

[thistle]

Again, why are you so quick to gainsay this great doctor of the Church? Even among great theologians there are varying opinions about this, so, because of this doubt, we should err on the side of not demeaning such a great doctor of the Church than on the side of considering him less faithful than he was. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., writes in his Reality ch. 37 Mariology:Yes, but they have more authority than the average Joe on the street by the very fact they are saints, so we should not dismiss what they say so easily.

You are the one who brought up the subject that what the saints said should not be easily dismissed. Well that depends on whether what they said was right or wrong.
We can easily dismiss St Thomas Aquinas’ opinion on the Immaculate Conception because we know it to be wrong.
While we should not be ready to dismiss all they have said we certainly can for the things we know they got wrong.

 

[Baelor]

Yes, but they have more authority than the average Joe on the street by the very fact they are saints, so we should not dismiss what they say so easily.

That is not true. They do not have more authority in all matters simply because they are saints.

 

[Timothysis]

People are usually declared to be saints based upon the sanctity of their lives, not their opinions of all subjects.

 

[exoflare]

Geremia, could you please answer my question on why you put this saint’s opinion above the Catechism which directly contradicts it?

 

[Scapegoat]

Yes, but a saint’s views shouldn’t be dismissed this way.

I think we’re missing something here and that is the gambling part. I don’t believe the saint was against chess itself but was against chess for gambling purposes. I have hard time believing that St. Peter Damian would have a problem with a zero wager chess game for recreation.

St. Francis de Sales writes, in his Introduction to the Devout Life “Chapter XXXI. Of Amusements and Recreations: what are allowable”, thatSo, although St. Peter Damian may have thought chess was a game of chance, he was probably more upset that that bishop was wasting his time and possibly giving scandal to others that he was gambling.

Another good possibility. As St. Francis de Sales says: “If you spend too much time on games they are no longer recreations but occupations.”

 

[LilyM]

Geremia, could you please answer my question on why you put this saint’s opinion above the Catechism which directly contradicts it?

Or more correctly, why you put a priest’s opinion (Fr Garrigou-Lagrange) ABOUT opinions of the Saints above the Catechism which contradicts both priest and saint.

And equally importantly why you put this particular saint’s opinion against that of other eminent Doctors of the Church, being Sts Francis de Sales and Teresa of Avila, which also contradicts it!

 

[Lujack]

That makes sense; he didn’t want effeminate priests.

I don’t quite follow how that translates into an opposition to cleanliness and hygiene.

 

[Lujack]

I totally agree with you, and St. Nicholas. It is a very unpopular opinion, though, extremely unpopular, in fact…

What, that priests should bathe?

 

[The_Scott]

I don’t quite follow how that translates into an opposition to cleanliness and hygiene.

Well, bathing was considered a luxury. It’s not so much effeminate priests, but more of an opposition to “rich” and “luxourious” clergy.

 

[Scapegoat]

Well, bathing was considered a luxury. It’s not so much effeminate priests, but more of an opposition to “rich” and “luxourious” clergy.

I think there still are religious orders that abstain from bathing/showering to a certain degree. When my brother visited the Clear Creek Benedictines, he said they didn’t take full showers everyday. For the days they didn’t shower I think he said they used a wash cloth for a quick cleaning.

 

[ClayPots47]

LilyM;9259326:

Are you aware that St Thomas Aquinas (and I think St Catherine of Siena too) did not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? In their day such a view did not make one an unorthodox Catholic, as the Immaculate Conception was not declared definitively until hundreds of years afterwards.

So yes, we can dismiss the views of even very eminent saints.

That’s a myth. St. Thomas certainly did believe it, although he struggled explaining it.

LilyM is correct, that’s not a myth, it’s a fact. The Franciscan Duns Scotus “argued that Mary’s immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption granted her because of her special role in salvation history” (Wikipedia) Fellow Franciscan Bonaventure held a view similar to Aquinas.
"Wikipedia:

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the medieval scholastics, refused to admit the Immaculate Conception, on the ground that, unless the Blessed Virgin had at one time or other been one of the sinful, she could not justly be said to have been redeemed by Christ

Summa Theologica, III, q. 27, art. 3 Click the Page2159 link, then the magnifier top left. Read his own words on the subject.

Although the dogma was defined relatively recently, does that mean one could believe otherwise before its definition and remain a faithful Catholic?

Yup.

 

[ClayPots47]

thistle;9259844:

Not so. St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Again, why are you so quick to gainsay this great doctor of the Church? Even among great theologians there are varying opinions about this, so, because of this doubt, we should err on the side of not demeaning such a great doctor of the Church than on the side of considering him less faithful than he was. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., writes in his Reality ch. 37 Mariology:

Thistle was not demeaning Aquinas, nor considering him less than faithful. There were different schools of thought back then, Aquinas and Bonaventure were one, they questioned whether she was immaculately conceived, while Duns Scotus proposed that she was indeed immaculately conceived. Initially, Aquinas proposed the idea that Mary was immune from both original and actual sin, but later in the Summa he dismissed that idea. At the end of his life, he rethought his original position and accepted the possibility. Garrigou-Lagrange explains this, which is why the differing opinions exist among theologians.

thistle;9259844:

We may not dismiss the teachings of the Church but we certainly do not have to accept or take in everything the saints said. They were not infallible.

Yes, but they have more authority than the average Joe on the street by the very fact they are saints, so we should not dismiss what they say so easily.

Uh… no they don’t have more authority than the average joe, and we can dismiss what they say, because the Church considers their writings and teachings to be private revelation, which no Catholic is bound to believe, though we should hold them in high regard. Apparitions/Private Revelations