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

[Geremia]

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.

It’s not a single man’s opinion. It’s an interpretation of St. Thomas based on many other great theologians’ interpretations. What multiple people say is more likely to to be true than what one single person says (cf. the Summa article “Whether the evidence of two or three persons suffices?”).

Let’s see what that interpretation is (from ch. 37 MariologyReality):

At the beginning of his theological career [857] St. Thomas [858] explicitly affirms this privilege: The Blessed Virgin, he says, was immune, both from original sin and from actual sin. But then he saw that many theologians understood this privilege in a sense that withdrew the Virgin from redemption by Christ, contrary to St. Paul’s [859] principle that, just as all men are condemned by the crime of one man (Adam): so all men are justified by the just deed of one man (Christ, the second Adam): and that therefore, just as there is but one God, so there is also only one mediator, Christ, between God and men. Hence St. Thomas showed that Mary, too, was redeemed by the merits of her Son, and this doctrine is now part and parcel of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. But that Mary might be redeemed, St. Thomas thought that she must have the debt of guilt, [860] incurred by her carnal descent from Adam. Hence, from this time on, he said that Mary was not sanctified before her animation, leaving her body, conceived in the ordinary way, to be the instrumental cause in transmitting the debitum culpae. We must note that, in his view, [861] conception, fecundation, precedes, by an interval of time, the moment of animation, by which the person is constituted. The only exception he allowed was for Christ, whose conception, virginal and miraculous, was simultaneous with the moment of animation.

Hence, when we find St. Thomas repeating that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin, we know that he is thinking of the conception of her body, which precedes in time her animation.

At what exact moment, then, was Mary sanctified in her mother’s womb? To this question he gives no precise answer, except perhaps at the end of his life, when he seems to return to his original view, to a positive affirmation of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Before this last period, he declares [862] that we do not know the precise moment, but that it was soon after animation. Hence he does not pronounce on the question whether the Virgin Mary was sanctified at the very moment of her animation. St. Bonaventure had posed that question and like many others had answered in the negative. St. Thomas preferred to leave the question open and did not answer it.

To maintain his original position in favor of the privilege, he might have introduced the distinction, familiar in his works, between priority of nature and priority of time. He might thus have explained his phrase “soon after” (cito post) to mean that the creation of Mary’s soul preceded her sanctification only by a priority of nature. But, as John of St. Thomas [863] remarks, he was impressed by the reserved attitude of the Roman Church, which did not celebrate the feast of Mary’s Conception, by the silence of Scripture, and by the negative position of a great number of theologians. Hence he would not pronounce on this precise point. Such, in substance, is the interpretation given by N. del Prado and P. Hugon. [864] The latter notes further the insistence of St. Thomas on the principle, recognized in the bull Ineffabilis Deus, that Mary’s sanctification is due to the future merits of her Son as Redeemer of the human race. But did this redemption preserve her from original sin, or did it remit that sin? On this question St. Thomas did not pronounce.

In opposition to this interpretation two texts of the saint are often cited. In the Summa [865] he says: The Blessed Virgin did indeed incur original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before she was born. Writing on the Sentences, [866] he says: The Virgin’s sanctification cannot properly be conceived either as preceding the infusion of her soul, since she was not thus capable of receiving grace, or as taking place at the very moment of the soul’s infusion, by a grace simultaneously infused to preserve her from incurring original sin.

How do the theologians cited above explain these texts? They [867] answer thus: If we recall the saint’s original position, and the peremptoriness of the principle that Mary was redeemed by Christ, these two texts are to be understood rather as a debitum culpae originalis than the actual incurring of the sin itself. Thus animation would precede sanctification by a priority of nature only, not of time.

Here we must remark, with Merkelbach, [868] that these opportune distinctions were not yet formulated by St. Thomas. The saint wrote “she incurred original sin,” and not “she should have incurred it,” or “she would have incurred it, had she not been preserved.” Further, the saint wrote: “We believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified soon after her conception and the infusion of her soul.” [869] And he does not here distinguish priority of nature from priority of time.

Continued below…

 

[Geremia]

…continued from above:

But we must add, with Voste, [870] that St. Thomas, at the end of his life, seems to return to the original view, which he had expressed as follows: [871] Mary was immune from all sin, original and actual. Thus, in December 1272, he writes: [872] Neither in Christ nor in Mary was there any stain. Again, on the verse [873] which calls the sun God’s tent, he writes: Christ put His tent, i. e.: His body, in the sun, i. e.: in the Blessed Virgin who was obscured by no sin and to whom it is said: [874] “Thou art all beautiful, my friend, and in thee there is no stain.” In a third text [875] he writes: Not only from actual sin was Mary free, but she was by a special privilege cleansed from original sin. This special privilege distinguishes her from Jeremias and John the Baptist. A fourth text, [876] written in his last year of life, [877] has the following words: Mary excels the angels in purity, because she is not only in herself pure, but begets purity in others. She was herself most pure, because she incurred no sin, either original or actual, not even any venial sin. And he adds that she incurred no penalty, and in particular, was immune from corruption in the grave.

Now it is true that in that same context, some lines earlier, the saint writes this sentence: The Blessed Virgin though conceived in original sin, was not born in original sin. But, unless we are willing to find in his supreme mind an open contradiction in one and the same context, we must see in the word, “She was conceived in original sin,” not original sin itself, which is in the soul, but the debt of original sin which antecedently to animation was in her body conceived by the ordinary road of generation. [878].

We conclude with Father Voste: [879] “Approaching the end of his life here below, the Angelic Doctor gradually returned to his first [880] affirmation: the Blessed Virgin was immune from all sin, original and actual.”

 

[Geremia]

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

He’s definitely not opposed to cleanliness and hygiene. Such an opposition would be against the 5th Commandment because these things are ordered to the preservation and maintenance of life. He’s more likely opposed to the occasion of sin of being naked with oneself when taking a bath and to a man narcissistically admiring himself in a mirror.

We’ve probably all heard of St. Thomas’s famous Summa article “Whether pain and sorrow are assuaged by sleep and baths?.” He says yes.

 

[Geremia]

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

He’s definitely not opposed to cleanliness and hygiene. Such an opposition would be against the 5th Commandment because these things are ordered to the preservation and maintenance of life. He’s more likely opposed to the occasion of sin of being naked with oneself when taking a bath and to a man narcissistically admiring himself in a mirror.

We’ve probably all heard of St. Thomas’s famous Summa article “Whether pain and sorrow are assuaged by sleep and baths?.” He says yes.

 

[Geremia]

What, that priests should bathe?

No, I doubt it. See above.

 

[Geremia]

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

Should we judge what this great saint said about this important topic just by reading one quote of his works? See this.

 

[Geremia]

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.

By “different opinions,” I meant “different opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas’s views on the Immaculate Conception,” not the various peoples’ views of the Immaculate Conception itself. See this.

Uh… no they don’t have more authority than the average joe

On matters pertaining to faith and morals, they do have more authority. I’m not claiming they have more authority on all matters.

 

[Geremia]

Well, bathing was considered a luxury. It’s not so much effeminate priests

Masculine priests can certainly bath. I think the saint was opposed to bathing not because of the bathing per se but because of the occasion of sin bathing might present, e.g., being naked and perhaps even alone with oneself.

but more of an opposition to “rich” and “luxourious” clergy.

That could be, too, although if the rich were not the only ones to bath in the Middle Ages, then definitely by the 18th century, when St. Nicholas of the Holy Mountain lived, most everyone bathed.

 

[LilyM]

It’s not a single man’s opinion. It’s an interpretation of St. Thomas based on many other great theologians’ interpretations. What multiple people say is more likely to to be true than what one single person says (cf. the Summa article “Whether the evidence of two or three persons suffices?”).

Let’s see what that interpretation is (from Reality ch. 37 Mariology):Continued below…

Good heavens. I’m not talking about the Immaculate Conception. I’m saying why do you take Fr G’s word for it that St Peter Damian is an authority on things like chess, when both the Magisterium (in the Catechism) and other equally eminent saints feel free to contradict him and blatantly disregard his authority, such as it is?

THAT is the important question, and one which you have singularly failed to respond to.

 

[thistle]

By “different opinions,” I meant “different opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas’s views on the Immaculate Conception,” not the various peoples’ views of the Immaculate Conception itself. See this.On matters pertaining to faith and morals, they do have more authority. I’m not claiming they have more authority on all matters.

You still haven’t responded to LilyM’s question and I don’t want to continue derailing the thread by talking about The Immaculate Conception. However, St Thomas Aquinas’ views on this were clear and unambiguous.

His own words in The Catechetical Instructions of Thomas Aquinas:

QUOTE

Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that he was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it.

UNQUOTE

No room for different opinions or interpretations. It is clear. He did not believe in The Immaculate Conception.

Now back to the thread, if you would be so kind to answer LilyM’s question.

 

[ClayPots47]

By “different opinions,” I meant “different opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas’s views on the Immaculate Conception,” not the various peoples’ views of the Immaculate Conception itself…

I know what you meant, it doesn’t change what I wrote. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. We are still talking about tomatoes. The theologians different opinions is the same as various views. So let me repost what I said, with the addition of what you meant added in bold; “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 regarding interpreting St. Thomas’s views on the Immaculate Conception," exist among theologians.” Still reads the same to me.

On matters pertaining to faith and morals, they do have more authority. I’m not claiming they have more authority on all matters.

They don’t have more authority on matters pertaining to faith and morals, but the pope has. Because the pope can speak infallibly as part of his office as pope. The Church does not teach what you claim. And I posted what the Church teaches regarding private revelation, which includes the writings and teachings of the saints. We are to hold them in high regard, but they have no authority,;we are not required to believe or accept anything they wrote or taught, unless the Church Herself teaches it as worthy of belief.

 

[Geremia]

I’m saying why do you take Fr G’s word for it that St Peter Damian is an authority on things like chess

What did I say that made you think that?

, when both the Magisterium (in the Catechism) and other equally eminent saints feel free to contradict him and blatantly disregard his authority, such as it is?

They “blatantly disregard his authority”? Most saints probably don’t even know who St. Peter Damian was.

THAT is the important question, and one which you have singularly failed to respond to.

Well, it’s probably due to a lack of my understanding your question. Could you please clarify? Thanks

 

[Geremia]

Now back to the thread, if you would be so kind to answer LilyM’s question.

Let me try to understand the question:

Definitions:
Argument A = argument by a non-canonized Catholic
Argument B = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments C,D,E,…etc = arguments by non-canonized theologians about Argument B and quoted in Argument A

Question:
How can I give credence to Argument A if its author is not canonized and Argument B’s author is?

 

[Geremia]

I know what you meant, it doesn’t change what I wrote. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. We are still talking about tomatoes. The theologians different opinions is the same as various views. So let me repost what I said, with the addition of what you meant added in bold; “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 regarding interpreting St. Thomas’s views on the Immaculate Conception," exist among theologians.” Still reads the same to me.

Okay, so, despite all this, you and others here still claim he denied the Immaculate Conception as though he never supported it?

They don’t have more authority on matters pertaining to faith and morals, but the pope has. Because the pope can speak infallibly as part of his office as pope.

And even then, he speaks infallibly only when he is in conformity with the teachings of the Church.

The Church does not teach what you claim. And I posted what the Church teaches regarding private revelation, which includes the writings and teachings of the saints. We are to hold them in high regard, but they have no authority

Even when they are holy and what they write is in conformity with the teachings of the Church?

,;we are not required to believe or accept anything they wrote or taught

I’m not saying so, either. I’m saying that if you had to choose, e.g., between an atheist’s argument regarding, e.g., contraception, versus that of a saint of the Church, all else being equal, whose argument would be more authoritative?

, unless the Church Herself teaches it as worthy of belief.

 

[LilyM]

Let me try to understand the question:

Definitions:
Argument A = argument by a non-canonized Catholic
Argument B = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments C,D,E,…etc = arguments by non-canonized theologians about Argument B and quoted in Argument A

Question:
How can I give credence to Argument A if its author is not canonized and Argument B’s author is?

Not quite:

Argument A = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments B and C = arguments by two other doctors of the Church
D = authoritative statement of Magisterial teaching contained in the Catechism

Why believe A (St Peter Damian)

when B (St Francis de Sales) and C (St Teresa of Avila) both say the opposite of A,

when D says the opposite of A,

and when D also says that all of A B and C are private non-binding revelation and says that D trumps all of A B and C.

Now does my question make sense?

 

[Lujack]

Let me try to understand the question:

Definitions:
Argument A = argument by a non-canonized Catholic
Argument B = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments C,D,E,…etc = arguments by non-canonized theologians about Argument B and quoted in Argument A

Question:
How can I give credence to Argument A if its author is not canonized and Argument B’s author is?

Because Argument B’s author is canonized for the holiness of his life, not for his veracity on every argument that he should make?

 

[Geremia]

Because Argument B’s author is canonized for the holiness of his life, not for his veracity on every argument that he should make?

Unless he’s a doctor, wouldn’t there be a much stronger link between the saint’s holiness and the veracity of the saint’s writings?

 

[Geremia]

Not quite:

Argument A = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments B and C = arguments by two other doctors of the Church
D = authoritative statement of Magisterial teaching contained in the Catechism

Why believe A (St Peter Damian)

when B (St Francis de Sales) and C (St Teresa of Avila) both say the opposite of A,

when D says the opposite of A,

and when D also says that all of A B and C are private non-binding revelation and says that D trumps all of A B and C.

Now does my question make sense?

Yes, it does. Thanks

I would say, in this case, that we should not believe A unreservedly or unqualifiedly.

 

[Baelor]

Unless he’s a doctor, wouldn’t there be a much stronger link between the saint’s holiness and the veracity of the saint’s writings?

That does not make the belief correct. I fail to see why that link would hold. Furthermore, saints can be identified with one aspect of morality in particular, and so according to your own reasoning that would diminish their credibility in other aspects of morality.

The fact that a saint said it ought to be (controversial, I know) irrelevant. Their reasoning for the claim is what matters.

 

[underacloud]

ClayPots47;9265989:

The Church does not teach what you claim. And I posted what the Church teaches regarding private revelation, which includes the writings and teachings of the saints. We are to hold them in high regard, but they have no authority

Even when they are holy and what they write is in conformity with the teachings of the Church?

And here (my underlining above) is the key.

The authority with which any Saint writes comes not from their being a Saint, but from their writings being in comformity with the Church…which is to say that such authority relates to Church authority, not the personal authority of any given Saint.

If I write a book on faith and morals, no one would be bound by my authority…I have none. But if what I write is in comformity with the Church, you might say that what I write has authority, in as much as it properly represents the teachings of the Church.

Where a Saint - or any clergy or lay person - writes/teaches something that has no support in Church teaching, it has no authority over us.