St. Catherine of Siena and the Prince of Darkness

[aquohn]

Just a random thought I had last night. I was thinking about how Satan was called the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as opposed to Christ, the Prince of Peace. So, I had thought about this before, and the other time I thought, 'for Jesus, God the Father is Peace. But then what would be the analogue for Satan? Where, or what, is the evil greater than Satan, Darkness itself?" Of course, with no good answer (and, at that time, not enough tech-savvy to find this forum) I left that thought hanging and went on with my life. However, I recently revisited the thought, and coupled it with this nugget from St. Catherine of Siena:

They [the homosexuals] not only fail from resisting the weakness [of fallen human nature] … but they do even worse when they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but is disgusting even to the devils themselves whom these depraved creatures have chosen as their lords.

For Me this sin against nature is so abominable that for it alone five cities were destroyed by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear their iniquity …

It is disgusting to the devils not because evil displeases them or because they find pleasure in good, but rather because their nature is angelic and flees upon seeing such a repulsive sin being committed. For while certainly it is the devil that first strikes the sinner with the poisoned arrow of concupiscence, nonetheless when a man actually carries out such a sinful act, the devil goes away.

(St. Catherine of Siena, El diálogo,
in Obras de Santa Catalina de Siena, Madrid: BAC, 1991, p. 292) (emphasis added)

And then, I remembered that Satan is a (veryveryvery) bad Catholic. He may drag millions, nay, billions of souls down with him, but he still, fundementally, believes in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. He may claim he doesn’t, he may spread doctrine contrary to them, he may turn from them, but he believes in them.

If even demons are repulsed by homosexuality and believe the doctrines of the Church, I shudder when I realise what does not meet these two criteria, and is thus more evil than Satan himself.

The answer is simple.

The ultimate freedom of nature accorded to man has caused man to be able to be whatever he wants to be.

Even the ultimate evil, Darkness itself, more evil than Satan himself.

Note the usage of ‘it’, with all the disgusting androgyny going around.

Man on Earth will never become as powerful as a spiritual being like the devil, but can certainly supersede him in evil, as evidenced above.

The Darkness is a faction/group of men.

What do you think?

 

[Rainaldo]

If even demons are repulsed by homosexuality and believe the doctrines of the Church … with all the disgusting androgyny going around.

Man on Earth will never become as powerful as a spiritual being like the devil, but can certainly supersede him in evil, as evidenced above.

No, it’s not the sexual ambiguity that revolts the devils. Part of it is the simple fact that men are physical beings, with bodies, while the devils are pure spirits. Just to have a body is disgusting to them, and they are disgusted to be attached to one, such as in the case of human possession. That’s why they chose the pigs, and inspired them to run off the cliff. Angelic beings such as devils are above men on the order of nobility of beings, they are higher than us inasmuch as they are more like God than, say, a penguin or a tree or a rock.

But when you combine the disgusting fact of physicality with the misuse of that body, that grosses them out even more. We are already basically bags of filth as it is (cut a man open, and you basically get the sights and smells and contents of the intestines), and when we do physically disgusting things it only adds to the offensiveness that we pose to them. Remember, devils do not exactly take joy in our sins; they are as revolted as we are, nay more insofar as they really understand what is really going on.

By the way, Devils do not have sanctifying grace, and they do not “see” what faith makes visible. They had a hard time grasping that Jesus was the second person of the trinity; they even have a hard time figuring out the trinity.

 

[Elizium23]

It amuses me that Catherine was a Dominican Tertiary and yet your descriptions of humans as “disgusting bags of filth” and “the greatest evil on Earth” smack of Albigensianism.

Please remember that the flesh is not inherently evil. Humans were made for pleasure. We may suffer from corrupting influences of the world, but in the beginning. “God saw that it was good.”

 

[Poseidon]

Are you trying to imply here that homosexuality is somehow making humans worse than Satan?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Are you trying to imply here that homosexuality is somehow making humans worse than Satan?

There is a distinction between the person and the* sin* that person commits.

 

[elsietully]

hi all i am new to the forum .im married 41years with 3 children .i live in knock in Ireland our lady appeared hear in 1879 how beautful it is to live hear

 

[aquohn]

Are you trying to imply here that homosexuality is 3omehow making humans worse than Satan?

Your comment can be read in a very misleading manner. Homosexuality, like kleptomania, is a mental condition which causes one to be more vulnerable to the temptation of sin. It is a disorder, one that deserves pity rather than hatred. Having homosexual inclinations is not sinful, put pitiful. Acting on them is sinful, shameful, evil, and repulsive even to devils.

This has nothing to do with the human race as a whole. It has everything to do, however, with Sodomites, who once so aroused the just wrath of the Father that they were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Getting incinerated wasn’t enough; the Sodomite cult, which rejects natural law and turns instead to gratification of their own disordered urges, still continues today, and are, most unfortunately, winning. The fact that they not only are not repulsed by it but sincerely believe such behaviour to be moral (and engage in it) can be read two ways: either making the weight of their vices lighter by virtue of ignorance, or by making their natures even more perverse and corrupt. I suppose my sentimentalism causes me to pray it is the former, although I fear it may be the latter (which is what I hoped would be the point of discussion).

@Rainaldo The mention of androgyny was a tangential matter. Also, the light of faith through sanctifying grace is not necessary to comprehend any of the doctrines of the Church (although certainly far more expedient than the light of reason, which is weak, slow and plodding). And, um, no offense, but the part about devils not getting the Trintiy sounds like a Protestant sola-fide cop-out when confronted with the fact that the Devil is supposed to believe precisely the things they do.

Also, Jesus sent Legion into the pigs. Legion (not sure of the pronoun, since ‘we are many’) was/were perfectly happy posesssing the poor men, but wet their pants went they saw Jesus come by, and asked if he was there to “torment us before the time”, and instead begged to be sent into the pigs.

 

[Elizium23]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm#II

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

• by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
• by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;
• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;
• by prayer:

I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.

 

[josephback]

hi all i am new to the forum .im married 41years with 3 children .i live in knock in Ireland our lady appeared hear in 1879 how beautful it is to live hear

Hi Elsie. Welcome to CAF. You’re in the right place

If you’re interested, I think there is a place on here specifically to meet and greet others, but I’m not sure myself where it is. At any rate by getting involved in discussions you’ll meet plenty of folks.

 

[fakename]

Just a random thought I had last night. I was thinking about how Satan was called the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as opposed to Christ, the Prince of Peace. So, I had thought about this before, and the other time I thought, 'for Jesus, God the Father is Peace. But then what would be the analogue for Satan? Where, or what, is the evil greater than Satan, Darkness itself?" Of course, with no good answer (and, at that time, not enough tech-savvy to find this forum) I left that thought hanging and went on with my life. However, I recently revisited the thought, and coupled it with this nugget from St. Catherine of Siena:

And then, I remembered that Satan is a (veryveryvery) bad Catholic. He may drag millions, nay, billions of souls down with him, but he still, fundementally, believes in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. He may claim he doesn’t, he may spread doctrine contrary to them, he may turn from them, but he believes in them.

If even demons are repulsed by homosexuality and believe the doctrines of the Church, I shudder when I realise what does not meet these two criteria, and is thus more evil than Satan himself.

The answer is simple.

The ultimate freedom of nature accorded to man has caused man to be able to be whatever he wants to be.

Even the ultimate evil, Darkness itself, more evil than Satan himself.

Note the usage of ‘it’, with all the disgusting androgyny going around.

Man on Earth will never become as powerful as a spiritual being like the devil, but can certainly supersede him in evil, as evidenced above.

The Darkness is a faction/group of men.

What do you think?

I think you are on to something in that sin is worse than hell and quite worse than the devil. However The Darkness cannot be a subsisting thing (if that’s what you’re thinking) since pure evil is pure negation and negation is only in an equivocal sense.

 

[Poseidon]

Your comment can be read in a very misleading manner. Homosexuality, like kleptomania, is a mental condition which causes one to be more vulnerable to the temptation of sin. It is a disorder, one that deserves pity rather than hatred. Having homosexual inclinations is not sinful, put pitiful. Acting on them is sinful, shameful, evil, and repulsive even to devils.

This has nothing to do with the human race as a whole. It has everything to do, however, with Sodomites, who once so aroused the just wrath of the Father that they were destroyed with fire and brimstone. Getting incinerated wasn’t enough; the Sodomite cult, which rejects natural law and turns instead to gratification of their own disordered urges, still continues today, and are, most unfortunately, winning. The fact that they not only are not repulsed by it but sincerely believe such behaviour to be moral (and engage in it) can be read two ways: either making the weight of their vices lighter by virtue of ignorance, or by making their natures even more perverse and corrupt. I suppose my sentimentalism causes me to pray it is the former, although I fear it may be the latter (which is what I hoped would be the point of discussion).

Your comment reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the condition of homosexuality.You seem to have the idea that anyone who engages in homosexual behavior is somehow trying to “stick it” to God, because they all know how much he hates it and somehow get gratification knowing that they are making him unhappy. This is completely untrue. Gay people, or “Sodomites” as you say, have the same urges as anyone else, just directed toward the same sex instead of the opposite. They aren’t out there forming cults and seeking nothing but gratification (well, some do, but that particular vice isn’t a gay or straight thing - promiscuity and instant gratification are found among all sorts of people).

 

[aquohn]

Your comment reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the condition of homosexuality.You seem to have the idea that anyone who engages in homosexual behavior is somehow trying to “stick it” to God, because they all know how much he hates it and somehow get gratification knowing that they are making him unhappy. This is completely untrue. Gay people, or “Sodomites” as you say, have the same urges as anyone else, just directed toward the same sex instead of the opposite. They aren’t out there forming cults and seeking nothing but gratification (well, some do, but that particular vice isn’t a gay or straight thing - promiscuity and instant gratification are found among all sorts of people).

Maybe I should stop speaking in poetic metaphor - people seem to be misunderstanding me.

By ‘cult’ I was not referring to a literal cult, more of those people who oppose natural law (which is self-evident in the world), and sincerely believe it to be false (or, even better [worse], think it is true ‘except for the part about sodomy’ - cafeteria morality), and even try to propagate the lies about sodomy. In other words, the gay-‘rights’ movement.

Why an attraction to the same sex can never be the same as an attraction to the opposite sex is excellently explained by this gentleman here. In particular, his essays on Natural Law and the Patriachal Family touch strongly on the topic of sex.