Saints with sinful pasts

  • Thread starter Thread starter child_of_God85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Might I (again) remind you that even today, this nation is loyal to the use of the death penalty and so far, tragically, a majority of Christians support it - although life imprisonment could spare lives. Do you support what the Chrcuh teaches today regarding the death penalty - or do you turn a blind eye to the use of it?
The Church says the death penalty shouldn’t be used unless the offender cannot be confined, and is continually killing people. So, if a heretic is mass murdering people and cannot be confined in a some sort of prison, yes, it is a viable solution.

** 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]**
 
I have a personal love of St. Vladmir. I was unfortunately unable to find a good internet description of him, but he was incredibly notorious. He had 900 concubines, sent his armies to plunder convents and enslave and rape the inhabitants. He used his wealth to erect a giant temple dedicated to the Slavic gods (and the old Tartat gods just to be safe.) He was later baptised and then helped to baptise thousands of peasents. He is now considered a Church father in the Russian orthodox tradition.
 
Its hard to know what your friend means really. Does he mean a christian who turns sinner then turns saint? Or a non Christian like Augustine, pagan who turned to Jesus and embraced Christianity?

I am confused as to what he is really looking for.

You can tell him that there have been popes that, while infaillable in teaching faith and morals, were a mess in their personal life…
This would only confuse him though.

Maybe you are dealing with a person who thinks christians cant fail, and only pre-selected people can follow or believe in God.

I dont know how to respond to either idea, because- you would at that point have to ask him if he is sinless.
If he says yes, then ask him what he thinks about Mary being sinless.
 
The Church says the death penalty shouldn’t be used unless the offender cannot be confined, and is continually killing people. So, if a heretic is mass murdering people and cannot be confined in a some sort of prison, yes, it is a viable solution.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, becau****se they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]
For whatever reason, you seem unable to distinguish between then (Henry VIII’s England) and now (the year is 2008). There’s no point in pursuing this exchange. Your imaginings don’t really interest me. If you can document anything that refers to the Church regarding St. Thomas More to be a reformed killer, please do so. The only two issues I’m addressing with you are your calling Thomas More a killer and your statement that Mary, the mother of Our Lord is not a saint. That’s it. Otherwise, my best to you. Blessings of St. Mary to you too.
 
Its my understanding that most brought before St Thomas Moore, did so of their free will. The other option, was the government which was doling out far far harsher punishments to anyone accused of crime.
So, St Thomas Moore is also venerated as a Saint in the Anglican church and I believe his head is buried in an Anglican Church, and they I think keep a day reserved for him (feast day?) as does the Catholic Church, and why not?
Its so interesting that anyone from this time period can scrutinize a period of time they never lived in and put their (I’m guessing? American?) standards and pre-concieved notions on to that time.

He is a saint, for a variety of reasons it seems. Namely the first, was willing to die for his beliefs.
Meanwhile, his critics suffer no such thing, or dillemma (at least in the states) and can blow a lot of hot air in their cozy environment.

Tell me, how many persons did St Thomas Moore actually find guilty with death as a consequence? And how many did he have to examine? Whats the percentage here?

Lets see the citations.

Then, lets compare them with the civil authorities of the time.

caseload, by caseload…

I learned this when I was a really reckless young maniac, who denied that any religion was good, he being a case in point at that time. Thinking what a waste of a great mind! His poor daughter!

But, I could be wrong.
 
Tell me, how many persons did St Thomas Moore actually find guilty with death as a consequence? And how many did he have to examine? Whats the percentage here?

.
St. Thomas More found none guilty.
He was a lawyer, not a judge.
 
St. Thomas More found none guilty.
He was a lawyer, not a judge.
According to this, he actually was. I suppose that’s what being Lord Chancellor means. The article goes on to praise him for the fact that only 4 heretics were met with the supreme penalty during his entire tenure.
In October, 1529, More succeeded Wolsey as Chancellor of England, a post never before held by a layman. In matters political, however, he is nowise succeeded to Wolsey’s position, and his tenure of the chancellorship is chiefly memorable for his unparalleled success as a judge.
newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
 
According to this, he actually was. I suppose that’s what being Lord Chancellor means. The article goes on to praise him for the fact that only 4 heretics were met with the supreme penalty during his entire tenure.

newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
Walden, I thank you for the documented correction. Then it’s more fair to say that St. Thomas More, as Chancellor, upheld the law of the Church and the land in his day.

(PS to filius: Not to be confused with our day.)
 
Oh no question. I don’t think you can compare our time with his. We can’t superimpose our value system on people who lived some 450 years ago and make judgments on their actions. I submit that he is no more a murderer than anyone else who has carried out their duty to execute the laws of a given country.
 
Oh no question. I don’t think you can compare our time with his. We can’t superimpose our value system on people who lived some 450 years ago and make judgments on their actions. I submit that he is no more a murderer than anyone else who has carried out their duty to execute the laws of a given country.
On the contrary, not to belabor the point, but St. Thoma More acted in accord with the laws of THE CHURCH and the State. That’s very different from actions that support the State without regard to the justice of laws according to Church Teachings.
 
It’s painful to see people straining to justify St. Thomas Moore’s actions, as if we have to make excuses for them.

In reality, the execution of public and notorious heretics is no more sinful than the execution of a mass murderer. In fact, it’s much more justifiable. Murderers only kill bodies, while heretics damn souls - perhaps the souls of millions.

Obviously, punishments for heresy would be unworkable in our modern, pagan society, but they were positively laudable when they were enacted in previous times. Many souls were spared by these actions.

Here’s St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject, responding to objections which say that heretics must be tolerated. He puts it better than I could:

"Article 3: Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?



*On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowling that he, that is such an one, is subverted.” *

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. **For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. **

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”
**
newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3
 
It would not work today, not because we are in a “pagan” society, but most people realize they dont have to step in for Jesus, and he claims he will take care of those who deserve it. He doesnt need any help apparently. The other reason it would not work, is it required the help of a government (king, emperor) working together on the deal. Thats not going to happen today.
I dont think I am making excuses for More, just tired of hearing about “what a bad guy” he was. Just not for the same reasons you seem to have, which are truly disturbing if applied to this day.
 
It would not work today, not because we are in a “pagan” society, but most people realize they dont have to step in for Jesus, and he claims he will take care of those who deserve it. He doesnt need any help apparently. The other reason it would not work, is it required the help of a government (king, emperor) working together on the deal. Thats not going to happen today.
I dont think I am making excuses for More, just tired of hearing about “what a bad guy” he was. Just not for the same reasons you seem to have, which are truly disturbing if applied to this day.
I don’t find Aquinas’ teaching disturbing at all. Why is it more disturbing to execute heretics today that in was 700 years ago? Does morality change with time?

If you disagree with his argument, you should refute it with the same lucidity and reason with which he proposes it.
 
Personally, I want to know if there are other saints who have fallen rather than continue on about St. Thomas Moore.
 
Personally, I want to know if there are other saints who have fallen rather than continue on about St. Thomas Moore.
I agree. Not that debate isn’t good, but we are supposed to be helping Stuart help his friend 🙂
 
I agree. Not that debate isn’t good, but we are supposed to be helping Stuart help his friend 🙂
I agree. I ought to make a new thread about this, but I’m rather busy. Does anyone think they might start one for me?

I’m really interested in all of this stuff about heretics. It’s never really come up in a conversation before with me.
 
Your friend should read the book Saints Behaving Badly which talks about the lives (and sins) of many saints, and their struggles to overcome their sinful pasts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top