The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
A steady, ever renewable stream of saints
by Richard McBrien on Oct. 26, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionThe feast of All Saints will be celebrated this coming Sunday. I was surprised that I had devoted only three columns to this feast, and those in the years 1994, 1996, and 2002. I am retrieving some of their main points in this week’s column with the hope that they might be of enduring value, both theologically and spiritually.
The 1994 column began: “The feast of All Saints, on Nov. 1, provides an annual reminder that there are many more saints in heaven than the relatively few who have been officially recognized by the church.
“For every St. Francis of Assisi or St. Rose of Lima there are thousands of unknown and long forgotten mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, co-workers, nurses, teachers, manual laborers, and other individuals in various kinds of occupations who lived holy lives that were consistent with the values of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
“Although each is in eternal glory, none of their names is attached to a liturgical feast, a parish church, a pious society, or any other ecclesiastical institution. The catch-all feast that we celebrate next week is all the recognition they're ever going to receive from the church.”
However, the church does not canonize saints simply to honor them, or, what is even farther from the mark, to honor their religious orders.
“The church makes saints in order to provide a steady, ever renewable stream of exemplars, or sacraments, of Christ, lest our following of Christ be reduced to some kind of abstract, intellectual exercise.
“Saints help us understand what the Gospel demands of us as disciples of Christ. Saints also help us understand the nature and purpose of the church.
“If the church only canonized priests and nuns, for example, it would be teaching a seriously faulty message: namely, that the ideal Christian is a celibate, unlike the 95 percent who marry and raise families.
“Unfortunately, the great majority of those whom the church has canonized -- and continues to canonize -- are celibate priests and nuns.”
Two years later, I pointed out that “in this modern age it would be highly unlikely for a married person of truly heroic virtue to be canonized unless, upon the death of their spouse, she or he founded or entered a religious order.
“There are three reasons for this imbalance between celibate and married canonized saints: the first two are financial and political, the third is theological.
“It costs a great deal of money to move a canonization forward over the course of many years, and, therefore, one needs the backing of a large and powerful organization, usually a religious order, not only to provide the necessary financial resources but also to have the Vatican take the petition seriously.
“But money and influence alone do not account for the disproportionate number of celibate clergy and religious on the official list of saints. The theological factor has always been the crucial one.
“For centuries many church leaders, theologians, and spiritual writers regarded marriage (and the sexual intimacy that is intrinsic to it) as the lesser of two evils. It is ‘better to marry than to burn,’ St. Paul insisted (1 Corinthians 7:9).”
After St. Paul, the theology of marriage went from bad to worse. Thus, the “Fathers of the church, particularly St. Augustine, laid the groundwork for the medieval view of marriage as ‘a lawful remedy for concupiscence.’ For Augustine marriage had no other purpose than to produce children. Sexual desires are the unfortunate effects of Original Sin, and Original Sin itself is transmitted through the sexual union of husband and wife.”
The Second Vatican Council began the slow process of putting things right, but it has been almost 45 years since its adjournment and the church continues to canonize a disproportionate number of priests and nuns.
“The theology that underlies our annual feast of All Saints,” I wrote in 2002, “is aptly expressed in the council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the church: ‘In the lives of those companions of ours who are more perfectly transformed into the image of Christ, God shows, vividly, to humanity his presence and his face.
“ ‘He speaks to us in them and offers us a sign of his Kingdom, to which we are powerfully attracted, so great a cloud of witness are we given and such an affirmation of the truth of the Gospel’.”
The quotation is from article 50. “What is true of saints is true of the church,” the column concluded. “It is a communion of saints and, as such, ‘a light to the nations.’ ”
These reflections, I believe, remain valid today.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
It would be nice to have more
It would be nice to have more variety in the saints but the canonization process should ensure that they are indeed saints. JPII gutted the process; there is no longer a devil's advocate for instance. Mother Theresa's miracle died as a disturbing example. If persons like Mother Theresa & JPII are really saints then let them be judged by a lengthy careful process just like any other candidate. It disturbs me when people like these two get on the fast track. There are valid questions to be raised about these two candidates. Not about their holiness but about their wisdom. I've always been suspicious of the cult of personality. Look at the Legion & Maciel!
As far as what McBrien has to say about St Augustine, it is a distortion. Original Sin is a characteristic of the dna so to speak, going all the way back to Adam. At conception or soon after, the soul instilled is affected by the Adamite characteristic of the dna and is stained with Original Sin, a true sin which marks the soul. That is the manner of transmission.
Dearest paultre, could you
Dearest paultre, could you please cite your sources for this, your meditation upon original sin, and why we might accept your opinion over and above that of the most reliable American Roman Catholic resource in the English language, the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, who is among so much else an actual, you know, professor of Roman Catholic theology at the leading US institute of Roman Catholic higher education, and editor of the standard reference work, The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, and the author of, you know, like, Catholicism, two tomes to which I gratefully turn to find the most coherent and reliable information on these matters.
In fact I highly recommend you read the item on Original Sin in the former, and ask you to explain where you may find "distortion." I have difficulty accepting your bare word on this without any citation of authoritative Church documents, aside from your perhaps poetic analogy to DNA passing along this "stain." Help me in my disbelief by supplying the logic behind your conclusions, please, and forgive me for asking.
But perhaps this is like asking you whether Adam had a navel, and in what year his birthday came.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
It's an original pault(r)e
It's an original pault(r)e concpet, mon frere! An explanation of the dogmatic formulation of that most holy Council of Trent.
Can you explain further,
Can you explain further, please, as I can not follow your logic from firm Roman Catholic dogma, as I can in the excellent, coherent, authoritative and standard writings of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien mentioned above.
First off I want you to know
First off I want you to know I agree one hundred percent with your take on JPII's saint factory. It was almost like canonization became a PR strategy for specific points of doctrine--or amount of money behind the cause.
As to your DNA speculations and original sin. I'd be careful with that one because you run into conflicts with abortion. If original sin is carried in the DNA then all those unbaptized fetuses have a problem. Maybe the concept of original sin is the problem.
The problem is that Original
The problem is that Original Sin is a doctrine which can't be gotten around. It certainly doesn't seem fair but it is true. I'm not saying that Original Sin is in the dna. It's just a theory anyway. It has nothing to do with abortion.
God creates a soul for each one of us which is pure and without sin. But when he instills it into the zygote which forms upon conception & after sex, the new soul becomes tainted with Original Sin, Adam's sin, the sin of the father of the human race. So what is it about this zygote which causes the soul to become tainted with original Sin, Adam's sin? It's the dna of the zygote which is remotely connected to Adam. All human dna is a variation of Adam's dna.
The Fathers only had primitive science to work with but they knew enough to say that when a male had intercourse with a woman, he transmitted something of himself in his semen. We know now that the semen contains the genetic code of the male. It makes no sense to say that the sin itself is transmitted through sex since sin is something of the soul while sex is of the body. My theory ties the two together.
I see then that you stand
I see then that you stand with Zosimus on this, substituting DNA for concupiscence. I strongly suggest you read the lengthy item written by Thomas A. Smith in the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism upon the history and theology of this, what you call, doctrine.
As a monastic of course I hear the golden voice of St. John Chrysostom on this topic, and your meditations here remind me of Edmund (or is it Edgar?) in the King Lear in that early scene before encountering his legitimate brother in which he mocks those who blame their sinfulness and lust and libido on the stars, and on astrology and on their time of birth. Edgar (or is it Edmund?)'s response in the original Quarto: "How long have you been a sectarian astrological?"
I believe some commentators have noted here Shakespeare mocking the doctrine of original sin, and the differences between the Anglican and the forbidden Roman Catholic (as elsewhere in this great play) as well as the vain attempt to blame our failings upon our DNA, or Adam, rather than upon ourselves . . .
Of course in this consumerist society which is driven by concupiscence to obesity, I blame the darn television! Turn it off already and read a good book like Fr. Dan Berrigan's latest!
and your point is?
and your point is?
You know mon frere, you might
You know mon frere, you might actually learn something if you listened to the wisdom of noble paulte instead of going off on tangents in a vain attempt at being clever. Has anyone ever told you that you are not clever and that your intellect leaves a little something to be desired? Hence the necessary invocation of St Jude Thaddeus!
I am truly amazed that any
I am truly amazed that any thinking,mature adult would seriously state Original sin is an "Adamite characteristic of DNA" & that conception (requiring sexual intercourse, of course) "is the manner of transmission". Sexual intercourse transmits human male sperm to possibly fertilize a human female egg in order to start the process of creating a new human being. DNA is actual human matter, as in flesh & bone is matter. Sin is a psychlogical condition of will (choice),as the Catholic catechism teaches, having nothing to do w/matter. As such, it can hardly be considered to be "instilled" in a soul along w/DNA.
Nobody has a good explanation
Nobody has a good explanation of Original Sin but there is a doctrinal formulation on the matter in the canons of the Council of Trent. Perhaps you should read that and come up with your own explanation. The very concept of transmission of a sin is problematic. So transmission has to be properly explained staying within the boundaries of Trent.
You misread my interpretation anyway. All dna ultimately goes back to Adam. At conception the zygote has dna which is related to the dna of Adam. This involves a variation of his genetic code. When God instills the soul created with no sin, it becomes tainted by the dna already present in the zygote which is related to Adam in some way. Then the innocent soul has Original Sin just like Adam had. Original Sin like all sin is a characteristic of the soul, a stain or tainting as it were.
You will find, dear one, an
You will find, dear one, an excellent and accepted explanation of Original Sin within the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, as well as within Catholicism itself.
Who on earth is this Adam you keep referring to? Sandler?
How can sin be a characteristic of the soul, if it is a tainting?
The soul in mortal sin is
The soul in mortal sin is tainted as it were by the sin. Crack open your Baltimore catechism, mon frere! There is a difference between a soul in sin and a soul in grace.
You can read about Original Sin in all those worthy reference places but only paulte uses the concept of dna to explain it! The science of genetics verifies Catholic teaching.
But dearest one, does not
But dearest one, does not your Baltimore authority place the unborn in Limbo, including all of those how many million victims of abortion? Is this for you due to their originally sinful DNA?
And the Trent guys really
And the Trent guys really knew all about dna? Come on. Forget Trent,that was for the reformation, just follow Vatican 2. That's for our time. Just follow the words of Jesus. Not pope so and so. Keep the faith
Actually, you are distorting
Actually, you are distorting what I say but taking quotes out of context. A typical liberal ploy!
It always amazes me to see
It always amazes me to see what conservatives use to attack liberals. It so ofthen is the speck and log in the eye issue.
No, it is the truth we use. I
No, it is the truth we use. I never distort what another person says. It's the Liberals that distort what I say because they're too dumb to understand it!
Paulte, since you are so good
Paulte, since you are so good at educating us "dumb" ones, perhaps you can explain where all those other people in Genesis who were alive at the time of Adam and Eve and Abel and Cain came from? If you read the story of creation, you get Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Then lo and behold, we find that there were bunches of other people from whom Cain found a wife. I wonder where their DNA came from? Surely you know the answer. Perhaps Adam and Even just had other children that Genesis fails to mention. But that would mean incest, and that is an ugly thought. Anyway, if Genesis did not bother to explain where these other folks came from, maybe there are other things that were left out. Gee, no wonder the church has such trouble explaining original sin. There is so much the church just does not know. Us poor "dumb" ones are left to figure it out for ourselves (or just refer to what Trent says and not worry about such details). You have done such a beautiful job at such fabrication. Maybe you could put your talents to work and help this poor "dumb" soul out of this dilemma? How about it? Are you up to the task?
paulte is always willing to
paulte is always willing to instruct the ignorant. It is a spiritual work of mercy.
Not everyone believes there was a single first pair of humnans. However, I do since there isn't any other way to adequately explain Original Sin. We know OS to be true, hence the Genesis story must be literal.
In the beginning of the human race there was not an incest taboo. The early humans were pretty gross anyway when it came to sexuality. God only set the law down when he interacted with the Jewish People, the Chosen. By that time, there were plenty of humans around so there were incest rules in the Mosaic Law.
Paulte is always willing to
Paulte is always willing to instruct the ignorant. It is after all a spiritual work of mercy!
There wasn't an incest taboo at the beginning of the human race. Cain & Able married their sisters. God pretty much turned his back on the human race after the Fall although he had relationships with good humans like Noe & Job & Abraham.
Well maybe you don't distort
Well maybe you don't distort what another person says and if that is true, I applaud your integerty. But this is not an area where you can use first person pural. There are conservatives who do distort what others say(as I am sure there are some who don't). And the same can be said for some liberals. Certainally Fox News is a conservative media outlet and they have often cropped quotes to make it appear that the person being quoted is saying the opposite of what he/she was actually saying. There is cold hard evidence on this point, you can ignore it, but that won't make it go away.
I just can't take someone seriously, conservative or liberal, who has so much invested in insulting. I think your posts would be more effective if you were willing to leave the insults out.
Peace and prayers, Paulte
I only insult people who
I only insult people who insult me first like mon frere!
I don't think you are being
I don't think you are being very honest with yourself here. When you called liberals "dumb", have all liberals insulted you? You have had other posts that have been insulting as well. Insulting only serves to make the one insulting feel powerful and does little to help create an understanding, let alone a love of one another. There are many good, open, prayerfull people who come to different conclusions. The reasons for this are known to God alone. We should be willing to recognize this.
Speaking of Liberals in
Speaking of Liberals in general is not the same thing as speaking of one liberal in particular. As a class, Liberals are arrogant & dishonest. They seem to be more interested in seeking the lowest common denominator rather than in seeking excellence. My theory is that they seek to validate their own immoral lifestyles and that is why they hate the Catholic Church whose teaching shows them to be mortal sinners.
In 2002, JPII declared Juan
In 2002, JPII declared Juan Diego a saint. Now it has come to attention that the holy Juan might not ever have existed. No one had even heard of him until one hundred years passed his phantom life, hence he is now regarded as the 'phantom saint'. Who is it amongst us now who can take this sainthood stuff seriously...pray to whom...Saint Casper.
Original Sin, give us a break with this one. Can you provide a 'soul' to my lab so that I might be able to study it for taintedness. DNA, we can find, but a soul, and if you can find one might I also be able to determine Original Sin from it. You are the perfect foil for the follies of the Council of Trent. I would suggest that Original Sin is solely the manufacture of St. Augustine.
Paulte, you are right in a
Paulte, you are right in a sense. There must be something of truth in your theory. Afterall, the Church has proclaimed the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Blessed Virgin had to be born without sin, hence her conception was immaculate. I am not sure how God accomplished this. It is a mystery yet one we as Catholics must take on faith. It is an infalliable teaching of the Church. It also alludes to your DNA theory since it assumes that during conception, original sin is passed from one or both of the parents to the child.
You have to be careful in
You have to be careful in interpreting my theory and it is just a theory. Leaving the dna out, it works like this. When God creates a human soul, it is without sin but when it is instilled into the zygote upon conception, it comes into contact with something of Adam and that contact causes the soul to be tainted or stained with Adam's sin, Original Sin. My theory is that the someting of Adam is in the dna. It's for Catholic scientists to try & explain this.
As far as the IC, I have a theory on that too and it shows that Christ had a more perfect IC than Mary did. Mary was conceived by two humans who both had Original Sin. At the moment of her conception she was redeemed by a pre-redemption of Christ according to Duns Scotus. At that moment genetically speaking, her dna was cleansed of Adam but still she was conceived by two streams of Adamite tainted dna. However, when Christ was conceived, his genetic matter only came from Mary which had no Adamite taint. Hence Christ's IC was even more perfect than Mary's & this gives a reason why Mary had an IC. The reason is Christ, Mary's raison d'etre.
Can anyone point me to a list
Can anyone point me to a list of happily married saints who continued their married lives through all the times for which they are celebrated?
Better yet, beyond the parents of Mary, after all Joseph is claimed not to have consummated his marriage to her, is there any list of married and canonized couples who are not reputed to have abandoned their conjugal rights at any time?
The parents of the Little
The parents of the Little Flower are indeed a complex case . . .
There are many married saints
There are many married saints to be found here: http://www.catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_marsainandbl.html
We need some married
We need some married exemplars...
I am glad that Father McBrien
I am glad that Father McBrien chose to focus on the paucity of married saints recognized by the Church.
As a RCIA catechist, I see issues with this over and over again from both the team members [who are poorly formed] and from those who are discerning membership in the Church. Practically, people believe sainthood is only possible for those who are clergy or religious. They believe that marriage automatically make them unworthy.
The article states, "The church makes saints in order to provide a steady, ever renewable stream of exemplars, or sacraments, of Christ, lest our following of Christ be reduced to some kind of abstract, intellectual exercise."
Where are married people to find exemplars for Christ like life in the midst of dealing with infants up all night, unemployment, recalcitrant teens, disagreeable in-laws, too many bills and too little money? When the "saint" model has, for all practical purposes, been cloistered prayer, marriage to the Church, celibacy, active missionary work as a member of a religious order, etc.; how does one find an example of holiness that resonates for married people with family responsibilities?
If the Church is serious about the role of the laity as having an integral part to play in the work of the Church, then it would be advisable to start acting as if this is true instead of just giving it lip service. The Church has to see the role of the laity as valuable and desirable and efficacious instead of something they have to rely on until the number of vocations increases. We are not just second class "workers in the vineyard."
Alas, with a current hierarchy that seems obsessed with stacking decision making powers in the hands of ever more conservative, celibate males, I don't think we will be seeing any change from "business as usual."
Saint Franz Jagerstatter, for
Saint Franz Jagerstatter, for one.
What struck me strongly about the recent canonizations during the African Synod was that no Africans were canonized.
I still and ever pray for the intercession of my powerful patron, Saint Charles Lwanga, whose Feast falls June 6, as well as Saint Charles Borromeo, whose Feast comes very soon. I am certain they together have preserved me from even greater harm than I manage to get into.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
And of course I await
And of course I await anxiously for the canonization of Charles de Foucauld, whose image and writings accompanied me in Solesmes (as did the NCR), of which he also is a survivor, and whose same image accompanies and strengthens me even now above the cot in our monastic cell.
I just wish I could find a copy of the carnets inedits which I read then, in particular those from his hiding out in the nuns' chapel in Nazareth.
I'm sure you can use the help
I'm sure you can use the help of the saints, mom frere! Have you considered adding St Jude Thaddeus to your list in terms of your intellect?
Pault(r)e
please see my recently
please see my recently publicized thanks to Saint Jude Thadeus under the excellent Saint of the Day series by Mr. Coday, although I hope you will not let that cat out of the bag, as I write there from the heart, and my heart cannot bear further insult from some of these blogsters!
My lips are sealed on the
My lips are sealed on the aforementioned saint, mon frere! However, I think you sort of let the cat out of the bag yourself in the above post!
I'm sure mon frere that you
I'm sure mon frere that you could use all the saintly help that you can get! Judging from the content of your posts, I think that you may want to cultivate a devotion to St Jude Thaddeus when it comes to your intellect!
I certainly agree with all
I certainly agree with all your comments. I too have longed to see an example of holiness that resonates for married people with family and extended family responsibilites.
Thank you!!!!!
Yes, they do. I am reminded
Yes, they do. I am reminded of two particular saints that I know. They were my parents. So many years ago I did a kid's prank of stealing a bottle of wine with a friend. We were caught and in those days they just turned you over to your parents figuring that would take care of it. You know what my parents did to me? They told me they hadn't given me enough freedom! I was now allowed to drive into San Diego for YMCA dances! And then to top that off, they said the incidence was over and was never going to come up again. It never, ever did. Their handling of this was unique, more like Jesus would have done. In fact, so much like Jesus that I deemed them to be saints for me for evermore.
Eathenvessel, I don't mean to
Eathenvessel, I don't mean to be insensitive here and I fear that maybe that is what I am being. So, if that is the case, please accept my apology up front. It just seems that whenever we are asked to list saints in our lives almost always one's parents are mentioned. I find this a bit troubling, as I think we need to reach beyond ourselves (and parents are extensions of ourselves, as we, as children, are extensions of them). How your parents handled the situation of you and your friend stealing a bottle of wine showed an admirable non-judmental charity, trust and wisdom for someone whom they clearly loved. It is a touching story, but I am not sure that it showed a depth of loving God and one's brother (and sister) as the commandments teach us, which I think a one needs to show to be considered a saint.
I too have been blessed with wonderful parents, who have shown me love, made many sacrifices and worked very hard for my development and well-being. Now that they are passed, I remember them for their gifts and remain grateful to God that they were my parents. However, I have not turned them into saints. Instead, I also look upon them as I do so many others, who are flawed, as they also were.
I guess I see a separation here. Perhaps there are those who, while not saints, had some saintly characteristics. Or, while not saints, were, in some circumstances, able to show the proper way to respond to God and his directive to love one another. And maybe it is these saintly characteristics which have been demostrated that shows that we are, indeed, the sons and daughters of the living God, dispite all of our other failings and all else that is wrong with us.
I think we're talking about a
I think we're talking about a blurring of meanings when some consider their parents as saints. Another word that often is misused is "hero". Most of the time, I'd believe that the misuse of the word (saint or hero) is well-intentioned, but one still has to try to use them correctly.
John, no apology necessary.
John, no apology necessary. This is a discussion and I expect different viewpoints. The bible calls us all to be saints. If you look at the lives of the saints, they were never perfect people but flawed people who made choices and ended up making some of them that were out-standing from the norm. I just feel like my parents were doing that at that time. Since all people in heaven are saints it's okay to recognize our parents as such. No, they will never be recognized by the church but that is okay. I am just saying that we can follow big AND LITTLE saints way's. That's why it's good to have All Saint's Day so we can recognize the people we think did things more as Jesus would have done come crunch time. I see a problem with the church recognizing some so greatly we forget there are more than we can count really. But they solve the problem quite nicely by giving us this day to recognize those not listed on the church roster.
A question for Father
A question for Father McBrien:
Do you foresee at some point in the future (far or near) the canonization of a non-Catholic, such as Desmond Tutu, or even a non-Christian, such as Mahatma Gandhi. If miracles are necessary, how about the successful reconciliation program in South Africa and the pacificist movement for freedom and justice in India?
Joe Wessling
I'd hardly consider post
I'd hardly consider post Apartheid South Africa some kind of miracle! There is no future for white people there. Look at the farm massacres. That country is engulfed in a crime wave. Half of the white children under 10 and their parents are now out of the country. South Africa will eventually go the way of Zimbabwe!
Upon what historical or
Upon what historical or sociological study do you find no future for "white people" in South Africa? Who owns the diamond mines?
Upon what statistical evidence do you find "half of the white children under ten and their parents now out of the country?" Your description here is indeed a mathematical contortion.
I find dearest paultre silence is my better response . . .
forgive me
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
I read the latest emigration
I read the latest emigration statistics put out by South Africa. In the last ten years 20% of the white population has emigrated from that country (1M people). That figure is concentrated among children. Half the white children under ten have left the country. As to the diamond mines, yes the whites own them now but who will own them tomorrow?
Of course not. The Catholic
Of course not. The Catholic Church canonizes invididuals who are examples of how to live a faithful Catholic life. They are examples to Catholics of how to live as a Catholic. So, what would be the point of canonizing a Hindu or Buddhist or Calvinist?
That is not to say that those people are not necessarily worthy of emulation. It is to say, however, that they are not models of Catholic life. Indeed, in the case of Gandhi, he is not even a model of the Christian lif, since the Christian life is always, in every circumstance, based firmly and primarily on the example and teaching of Our Lord. Again, that is not to say that there is nothing to learn from Gandhi, but rather it is to say that, though he may be an example of living a life of peace and justice, Gandhi is not an example of living a Catholic, Christian life, since he was neither.
Saints are not just people who did great things. They are people who did great things out of love of Christ. They are men and women who sacrificed their lives for Christ and His Church. They are men and women who spent their lives in efforts to preach or teach about Christ and His Church. They are men and women who formed religious congregations to preach the Good News of Christ and His Church to all the world. They are men and women who lived simple, ordinary lives founded on Christ and His Church.
Clint writes: " . . .he may
Clint writes: " . . .he may be an example of living a life of peace and justice, Gandhi is not an example of living a Catholic, Christian life, since he was neither."
Do you truly mean to imply that "living a Catholic, Christian life" is not "living a life of peace and justice?"
I take my cue from the Reverend Father John Dear SJ for instruction and indeed a vow, on living a truly Catholic, Christian life, of living a life of peace and justice, in nonviolence. I hope and pray for the strength and wisdom to convert ever more fully to this life in Jesus Christ.
As did Gandhi, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
So Gandhi was a Christian?
So Gandhi was a Christian? He converted? I must have missed that in my history classes. As you well know, the Catholic Church does not canonize non-Christians since the Church believes since canonization is an infallible declaration by the Church that a particular person, or groups of persons (as in the North American Martyrs) are enjoying the beatific vision in Heaven. The Church cannot make such a statement for a non-Christian, since the only known certain means to Heaven is through baptism and faith in Christ Jesus. While the Church holds out the possibility that non-Christians may be saved through God's great mercy and through means known to Him alone, we are by no means certain of that. Thus, she cannot make an infallible declaration that Gandhi is in Heaven.
Moreover, Gandhi was not Christian, nor Catholic, and thus, while his life may indeed be one of great virtue, it is not, by definition, a Christian one, since he was not Christian (unless, of course, dear Frere is privy to some secret knowledge of Gandhi's conversion to the Faith). Living a life of justice and peace is not enough to make one a person worthy of the honors of the Altar. What is necessary is living that life as a response to faith in Christ Jesus, for the greater glory of God.
Saint Gianna Molla--20th
Saint Gianna Molla--20th century married female doctor saint--how's that for feminism?? However, she would never be mentioned on this page because of her heroic virtue of not killing her child.
Well thankyou anonymous. I
Well thankyou anonymous. I just went to look her up and yes, she is a saint because she chose her baby over herself. Does that make my sister's saints also as two of them chose babies over selves? How many woment do that? But I think part of this article was pointing this out. So many people do follow Jesus but most cannot get the acclaim from Rome and it's probably best that way. But it's great we get to acknowledge all the unfamous saints who have touched our lives. One question I have about choosing to save another person over yourself - are the soldiers who throw themselves onto the grenade or in front of the enemy fire to save a comrade also saints?
Gianna Molla is an
Gianna Molla is an interesting story. Certainly her cause was expidited because of the current cultural wars. I can not forget however, that her choice was not made in a vacuum. The people who then raised her child and her previous children also made this sainthood possible and they too are perhaps real saints. Heroic in the long term sense, not the one time decision sense.
Timely collective reflection
Timely collective reflection of Dr. McBrien's thoughts concerning saints. Indeed, we are ALL saints whether recognized on this earth by men or not. As His children we are all set aside to be holy before our Lord. Thank you for choosing us, Lord.
A minor correction, BobM. We
A minor correction, BobM. We are all CALLED to be saints, but we are not saints yet. It is the task of our human existence to become the holy people that Christ has called us to be. Through our prayer, our faith, our good works, our charity and compassion, our mercy and forgiveness, through our doing of good and avoiding sin, we conform our lives to that of Christ, and in so doing, become saints.
Sin exists and it is perfectly possible that we might choose to sin, rather than to do good. Indeed, that choice is presented on a daily basis to each of us. Through God's grace, the strength of the Sacraments, the faith of the Church, and the example and prayer of the saints and angels, we, hopefully, make the right choice and daily turn again to Christ.
It is important to remember the distinction. We do not, for example, believe as the Calvinists do, in predestination. We do not believe that God has chosen His saints and that nothing we do in this life can change that choice. Rather we believe in free will, and we believe that being called to be saints, being "set aside to be holy" is not the same things as being saints. Our final destination, Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, depends on us, depends on how we respond to that great gift of faith and grace that we are given by our great and merciful God.
by loving our enemy by doing
by loving our enemy
by doing good to those who harm us
by turning the other cheek
by feeding the hungry
by comforting the lonely
by receiving the stranger at the gate
by healing the sick
by liberating the captive
After the New Testament era
After the New Testament era the church decided that holy people, saints, should be presented to the world as perfect people whose example we are encouraged to follow. All the perfect people please raise your hands. We are not perfect and neither were the saints. What makes them holy is that they loved, not perfectly, but they tried, failed, and tried again. Perhaps if we were told the weakness of the saints we would be encouraged to try to be holy in the midst of our weaknesses.
Mary Janice, many thanks for
Mary Janice, many thanks for your post. I will consider this and I am sure it will help me on my very bumpy journey. I do know that perfetction is beyond me, but, perhaps, "to be holy in the midst of my weaknessess" is not.
I am waiting for the
I am waiting for the canonization St. Therese of Lisieux' parents, Mr, & Mrs. Martin. From all I've read, they were the ideal married couple. And when writing of those not baptized Catholic, I offer my elderly neighbors - a married couple, who, until he died a year ago, exemplified married life and love.
read further please into
read further please into their history.
Leave it to Richard McBrien
Leave it to Richard McBrien to turn an article on All Saints day into another complaint about how the Church is not doing things his way.
how?
how?
By attacking St Augustine of
By attacking St Augustine of Hippo!
when? Have you had a chance
when?
Have you had a chance to read yet the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism's item on original sin, your favorite peccadillo?
Interesting analysis of Augustine there.
I think perhaps he would like
I think perhaps he would like to read Augustine himself, not what McBrien thinks of Augustine.
How sad to see so many good
How sad to see so many good points distorted by a spirit of negativity and complaining. Why, after making a decent point about the scarcity of married saints, wouldn't at least a few married saints be mentioned to strengthen the argument that married people can also be heroic witnesses to the faith?
Why, after making a decent point about the slow development of our understanding of marriage and human sexuality, wouldn't a positive mention be made of the fact that the Church has given us much more substantive teachings in this area (like the Theology of the Body)?
Even if you have valid criticisms of the Church (which you often don't, but here we find a few), why taint them with this overly complaining attitude? Complaining cannot get us anywhere. Prayer and love and seeking to affirm the good in the other can.
I look to saints as models to
I look to saints as models to follow.
However, I own my existence to generations of concupiscence sinners.
There's a complaint on a lack
There's a complaint on a lack of married saints? I think you all are overlooking the obvious:
The Blessed Virgin Mary - Married. Upon the death of her husband (Joseph - possibly married and widowed before marriage to Mary) she didn't enter or found a religious order.
MANY OF THE APOSTLES! Yes, we have priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite (for the most part) right now, but it wasn't always so. Our first pope was married!
There are many others, you just have to look for them.
We must also keep in mind that when we look for saints, our goal shouldn't be to try to find someone who is LIKE US, but rather some who's heroic virtue we can use as a model.
Perhaps it is the time to
Perhaps it is the time to reread ALL SAINTS by Robert Ellsberg?
Post new comment