Which "Catholic authors" do you think we need to steer clear of?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karen1996
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And part 2.

God bless.

O God, You Who are the truth, make me one with You in love everlasting. I am often wearied by the many things I hear and read, but in You is all that I long for. Let the learned be still, let all creatures be silent before You; You alone speak to me.

The more recollected a man is, and the more simple of heart he becomes, the easier he understands sublime things, for he receives the light of knowledge from above. The pure, simple, and steadfast spirit is not distracted by many labors, for he does them all for the honor of God. And since he enjoys interior peace he seeks no selfish end in anything. What, indeed, gives more trouble and affliction than uncontrolled desires of the heart?

A good and devout man arranges in his mind the things he has to do, not according to the whims of evil inclination but according to the dictates of right reason. Who is forced to struggle more than he who tries to master himself? This ought to be our purpose, then: to conquer self, to become stronger each day, to advance in virtue.

Every perfection in this life has some imperfection mixed with it and no learning of ours is without some darkness. Humble knowledge of self is a surer path to God than the ardent pursuit of learning. Not that learning is to be considered evil, or knowledge, which is good in itself and so ordained by God; but a clean conscience and virtuous life ought always to be preferred. Many often err and accomplish little or nothing because they try to become learned rather than to live well.

If men used as much care in uprooting vices and implanting virtues as they do in discussing problems, there would not be so much evil and scandal in the world, or such laxity in religious organizations. On the day of judgment, surely, we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken but how well we have lived.

Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while.

How many there are who perish because of vain worldly knowledge and too little care for serving God. They became vain in their own conceits because they chose to be great rather than humble.

He is truly great who has great charity. He is truly great who is little in his own eyes and makes nothing of the highest honor. He is truly wise who looks upon all earthly things as folly that he may gain Christ. He who does God’s will and renounces his own is truly very learned.
 
No, I would choose authors that accept the authority of the Church as that is the authority of Christ. I bind myself to the barque of Peter, not to moral relativism.

Does Franklin Graham accept the authority of the church, does Billy? Does Pastor Hagee, and other non-catholic authors accept the authority of the church? Do all Christian writers accept the authority of the Catholic church? No, obviously they do not. Are they devout Christians…? they seem to think so. Do they have a message about the love of Christ to impart upon the world? Yes, they sure do. Is is better than the Catholic authors? No, just different.

Perhaps you need a bigger box? I have an intellect illuminated by faith. I do not wander around lost seeking truth. I know Truth. I hopefully can discern error. I do not have itchy ears that need to run after every trendy vicar or false prophet to fill myself with nonsense.

All who wander are not lost. The journey for truth is life long. My intellect is illuminated by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and comes from “within” outwards. Each sacrament adds one more sign of grace. This is what illuminates my faith. By reading books other than purely religious and by Catholic authors…it moves me more towards the faith of my birth. What is a trendy vicar? I don’t read books that are totally religion based. False prophets don’t fill my head with nonsense, but I don’t admonish them for stating their beliefs. I don’t agree…I move on.

False. I know of no list these days. I do not need a list to know the spirit of error. I can read the signs of the times. Again, I start from the premise I know Truth. I do not start from the premise truth does not exist.
Psyshic too! Someone who can understand the book of Revelations. I admit, it boggles the mind. I don’t claim I know the Truth, as a mere mortal, it’s beyond my intellect. I will sin, I will do things I regret…I will fail. But I know that there will always be a hand and heart ready to bring me back to what is right.

Then how do you know what authors to choose based upon the authority of the Church? There is a list somewhere.

Your Americanism does not define truth. No one wants to ban any books. What some want is for Catholics to think critically and not follow secular falsehoods that equate liberty with license.
My Americanism makes me realize that no mere mortal has all the answers. Each faith follows a different path. Eventually the paths converge in one way. Again, I do think for myself.

I have no idea how you conclude that from what I have posted here. I told the OP to read things that edify her and not waste time on chasing error. If you want to educate yourself on a topic by reading nonsense you are free to do so, but I recommend not calling it education.
I read for pleasure and I read to to see another point of view.
 
I read for pleasure and I read to to see another point of view.
I understand Julianna, but the OP asked for help. They may not be as strong in their faith as you are, or they may be looking to learn more about their faith and want something in line with the Catholic faith. They should not be ridiculed for asking for assistance in this endeavor.

People have said do not read this person, or do not read that one, but look at the context, someone asking which authors that claim to be Catholic are not, and may teach falsehood. The OP is seeking to learn, not to see another point of view, but to seek the truth in the Catholic Church.

A lone Raven
 
A mind so open one’s brain falls out is no laughing matter.

And Ann Coulter is a hoot.

I rarely waste my time on fiction anymore and nearly always try to pre-select authors based on orthodoxy in matters of faith.

My latest reads are Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and Choosing to be Catholic (O’Malley) which I am reviewing for material to be used in my CCD class.

For Christmas, my daughter gave me a fresh copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Pirsig, 25th Anniv Ed) which I heartily recommend and which I intend to read again for the umpteenth time.
 
I read for pleasure and I read to to see another point of view.
Truth is a person, Jesus Christ.

The OP asked what Catholics authors to avoid. That is a good question. Like many areas of life we ask others, whose opinions we value, what to avoid. That is natural and good. Not all reading material is equal.

We have a touchstone. That is Christ and He speaks to us on matters of faith and moral through His Church. We can know Him and we can know what to avoid. That involves right reason, study, intellect, and faith.

If I want to learn what the faith teaches do I ask a Protestant minister or a faithful priest? Do I start by reading everything that is contrary to the faith or has some admixture of error? Our salvation is the most important thing in our life. I would not trifle with it by looking in all the wrong places.
 
I read for pleasure and I read to to see another point of view.
What is pleasure? There is pleasure that is good, and pleasure that is bad. The fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was delicious to the taste and smell, and pleasurable for the thought of obtaining wisdom. . .wasn’t it?😃

Now reading to see another point of view–again, what is that?
Again, there is pure good, and there is pure evil, and there are all the points between.

Wanting to see another point of view that is morally ‘neutral’–well, at least it won’t put the garbage in your mind, but unless you’re using that point of view to shore up your own faith–why bother? If you’re for good, you already KNOW what is morally ‘neutral’. . .and you know too what is morally evil.

If you see points of view where items (many or few) fall into the evil range, what are you doing but putting evil into your mind?

Few of us can really summon up the moral courage and integrity to examine evil–even the weakest evil, and come out stronger.

And the more we let the evil in, or ‘excuse’ it, on the grounds that we are simply ‘open to another point of view’ –

*N.B. I am not accusing Juliana or others of this, I’m just making an observation that would hold true for ‘any’ person

–the weaker we become. The more likely to be deceived.

Again, there are most certainly those who can 'walk through filth" and come out smelling like a rose. . .

but usually they aren’t telling anybody that they can do so.
Again, this is not personal, truly, but just as a general example, I have found (especially for myself) that the more a person will hold to their ‘point of view’ as being harmless. . .or ‘enlightened’. . .the less that point of view actually IS harmless or enlightened.

That is why, when it comes to a decision as to the Church saying something, and my own feelings/mind saying something, I will use my mind most wisely by conforming to the Church. This is not being sheeplike–it’s being sensible.

I don’t expect my doctor to have broken a bone in order to treat my broken bone. I don’t expect a marriage counselor to have experienced divorce before he counsels troubled clients.

So why on earth would I believe that I have to ‘judge evil for myself’ rather than ‘rely on some ‘institution’–when one of the reasons that we HAVE that institution is to rely on its’ teachings???
 
My answer:

When reading for information about the teachings of the Church, compare and contrast everything with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and consult with your pastor and your Bishop to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Even the very best Catholic authors sometimes slip up and make mistakes, so it’s really important to remember that only the Pope is infallible - and only the Catechism is really the Catechism. If Scott Hahn or other favourite writer writes something that is in contradiction to either the Pope’s teachings or the Catechism, it’s not that Scott has made a new discovery of some kind. Believe our Pope, and believe your Catechism - and pop off a short note to Scott, letting him know of the contradiction, since I’m sure he would want to know about it and fix it as soon as possible.

If you come across something that makes you think, “Wow, I never knew that before,” (if you’re a cradle Catholic) or, if you’re a convert, it makes your cradle Catholic friend say, “Wow, I never heard of that before,” that’s your signal to double and triple check the information, to make double-sure it’s accurate.

If your taste in fiction runs to apocryphal-style religious speculations, then I’d recomment that you spend at least equal time in the Scriptures and the Catechism. And, I would never recommend anyone to read The Da Vinci Code who hasn’t first memorized all four Gospels and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles - but that’s just me. 😉

And, ps: a first year Art History class wouldn’t hurt anything, either. 😃
 
Note:

Please review posts for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. While spirited discussion is encouraged, the discussion should be focused on the topic at hand and not descend into personal remarks. For example, debating the merits of reading authors with whom one disagrees is fine; accusing each other of “paranoia” or noting that someone “cracks [you] up” is unnecessary and borders on uncharitability.


If the thread continues to deteriorate, it will have to be closed.
 
Julianna, you crack me up. Did you know that the great majority of Americans think that they are NOT influenced by advertising? Funny how stupid those coporations are to still pour BILLIONS of dollars into “worthless” advertising…

Or on the other hand, maybe we Americans only THINK we are able to go uninfluenced by advertising. I used to be among them. Now I have a rather more realistic opinion of myself. I’m a human and I am influenced by my peers. It’s a fact of human nature. I can pretend that it is not so (and be subtly lead by people NOT of my own choosing), or I can use my intellect to ensure that I give myself enough exposure to what I deeply believe to be innoculated against the opposing influences.

Advertising and propaganda are the same thing. And they WORK. The only cure is to recognize that they exist and actively work to ensure that your own will in conformance with a healthy conscience is guiding your decisions and convictions, not the culture we live in.
manualman…just to let you know…I do not take offense to the “you crack me up” remark. I do agree with you on the advertising though…it really encourages me to limit my tv viewing, read more, bargain shop and keep my eyes open. 😃
 
Julianna, thanks! Tone is hard to convey on the web, no?

I didn’t intend offense. I just literally did crack up when I realized the parallel that was tickling the back of my mind. Propaganda/advertising comes in many forms though…

But I’ll avoid the phrase in the future.
Peace. 👍
 
and yes, I did read the DaVinci Code…and YES, I liked it, but I know it is FICTION.
[SIGN]-]/-][/SIGN]

I have heard this statement so many times within my own peers that it truly sends me for a loop. How can anyone not take offense that Jesus was blasphemed by insinuating that he had sex??? Beyond me to understand…I thought I was over-reacting until I heard Fr Groeschel speaking on Catholic Radio and he was LIVID at the insinuation. And if he is offended with great indignation…so can I!!!👍
 
Anyone with questions on the enneagram should read Father Mitch Pacwa’s “Catholics and the New Age”. He goes into depth. Do you know the origins of the enneagram? It was channeled through a medium and has ties to Sufi mysticism. It is NOT compatible with Christianity.

Authors to avoid…I can’t think of his full name or the title of his books, but an author by the name of Pennington (I think), Benedictine monk or something, writes about centering prayer. Avoid it like the plague! It is, in fact, a spiritual plague.

Centering prayer is all about the self, and opening the self, etc. It is related in some ways to the heresy of quietism, but isn’t quite the same thing. What it does is open oneself to ANYTHING, wheras prayer is a conversation with God, which employs the Mind, the heart, and the soul. Centering prayer shuts out the mind, heart, and soul in favor of “emptiness” which can be filled by any demon that comes along.

It is deceptive in that Pennington blurs the lines and makes a persuasive case for compatibility, which Centering prayer simply does not have.

Anything involving Eastern Mysticsm or any authors that discuss techniques involving this should be avoided.
 
Maybe we should stay clear of the following “Catholic Authors”:

St. John, I hear there some people who say that he teaches that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

St. Paul, there are those who say he teaches “saved by faith alone”.

St. Matthew, there are some who say that he teaches that Peter was not the rock that Jesus built his Church on, but only a small stone.

St. Luke, there are some that say that he teaches that Mary had other children.

:o
 
Maybe we should stay clear of the following “Catholic Authors”:

St. John, I hear there some people who say that he teaches that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

St. Paul, there are those who say he teaches “saved by faith alone”.

St. Matthew, there are some who say that he teaches that Peter was not the rock that Jesus built his Church on, but only a small stone.

St. Luke, there are some that say that he teaches that Mary had other children.

:o
Let’s also add Thomas Aquinas - he said a lot of things like this:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the philosopher observes (Summa Theologica).
 
A few years ago, based on my father’s recommendation, I picked up The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. I don’t rightly know whether he’s a Catholic, but the book is all about Catholics in a monastery. Though the story is very well written, I was greatly distressed to come across a rather pornographic scene in which a young priest has sex with a village waif.

Talk about a let-down! This has made me stay away from Eco ever since. It’s a shame, too. He could be so great if he didn’t pander to the sinful nature of man. Too often I see this in writers I would otherwise very much enjoy, such as Diana Gabaldon and, at times, Dean Koontz.

Leave out the sex. Give us a great story!
I don’t think he pandered to the sinful nature of man. I think he explored it. Are you telling me you continue to read Dean Koontz but you really won’t read anymore Eco? There’s plenty of illicit sex in the bible but it’s still a good read 🙂
 
St. Thomas Aquinas was slandered in an earlier post by of selectively quoting him. The improper quote in bold restates the objection, the next sentence in bold italics states his position.
Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?
Objection 1: It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that “the female is a misbegotten male.” But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.
Objection 2: Further, subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Gn. 3:16): “Thou shalt be under the man’s power”; and Gregory says that, “Where there is no sin, there is no inequality.” But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; “for the agent is always more honorable than the patient,” as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). Therefore woman should not have been made in the first production of things before sin.
Objection 3:Further, occasions of sin should be cut off. But God foresaw that the woman would be an occasion of sin to man. Therefore He should not have made woman.
On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 2:18): “It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself.”
I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from
seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed;therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: “And they shall be two in one flesh” (Gn. 2:24).
Reply to Objection 1: As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

Reply to Objection 2: Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove ([774]Q[96], A[3]).
Reply to Objection 3: If God had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect. Nor was it fitting for the common good to be destroyed in order that individual evil might be avoided; especially as God is so powerful that He can direct any evil to a good end.
 
Let’s also add Thomas Aquinas - he said a lot of things like this:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the philosopher observes (Summa Theologica).
You seem to have intentionally misquoted this great saint and Doctor of the Church to claim that he holds the opposite which he, in fact does. If you do not realize you misquoted him, then you may not understand how to read him. In this statement, he was restating an objection. The very next sentence, which expresses his views and which you excluded from your post, contradicts this and begins the rational refutation of this statement. Here is the rest of the paragraph:
On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.
But then, many people like to do this because of the way St. Thomas organized the Summa Theologica. He states a premise, provides multiple objections, states his overall position (“I answer that…” then replies to each objection. Often in the reply to an object, he restates or paraphrases the objection.

It is very easy to lift a quote, where he presents or restates an objection, isolate it then claim it is what he believed or taught. That is the case here. This is a classic college freshman error that will quickly get the student an “F”.
 
As far as fiction goes, the older I get, the more I prefer fiction geared towards the “Young Adult” reader. Isn’t that funny? It seems like everything offends my sensibilities these days. I used to read all sorts of horror, science fiction & fantasy, mystery/thrillers, and dramas.

I like Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, all the Jane Austen books. Generally, on a trip to the library, I’m more excited to see what my kids have picked up than any books I’ve sorted through.

I guess that doesn’t answer the op’s question. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top