For some reason progressive “Catholics” have decided to elevate non-Catholics into their own pseudo-Canon of “acceptibles”. Gandhi especially has been presented as a paragon of the only “dogmas” now taught: tolerence, peace, dialog, niceness, ecumenism, holiness without Christ & His Church (that’s the big one)..bla.bla.bla..you know the nonsense… Well, I hate to burst bubbles, but just in case you didn’t know, a little background on the secular “saint” on black natives in S. Africa. He was very much a Hindu who did not like mixing even among different “castes”, let alone with the African natives of Johannesburg. The below quotes are his opinion of the Indians being classed along with “kaffirs” (his term) during his time in South Africa.
(*Note: The word “kaffir” is considered an insulting term for blacks in S. Africa)
(“icon” of the “saint” by some delusional loon)
On having to live near Africans:
Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension.
Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.
_____________________________________________________
On having to use public transportation with Africans:
You say that the magistrate’s decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate’s decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court’s decision, only clean Indians or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams. (Read Article deflating the myth of the “saint”)
Hallowedground 
Thank you Ken for pointing this out. The truth must be told.
I know I will be accused of being racist, but another of these secular “saints” is Martin Luther King. The man was a misogynist and an adulterer and he is held up as an example. Hardly the example I would choose.
People are blasting Archbisho Burke for putting “Sister of Charity” Louise Lears under interdict saying how holy she is and what an example she is. She certainly is an example… of religious who break their vows of obedience, of publically participating in a heretical rite, of publically proclaiming dissent to solemnly defined church teaching regarding the ordination of women…. and all this by following the examples of “saints” like Ghandi and King. She is the perfect example of how to lose your soul while being duped by the father of lies. She and so many believe that as long as you do good it doesn’t matter if you obey Christ or His Church. If you aren’t in a state of grace all the good you do counts for NOTHING. One would think an “educated” Catholic woman would no this. But she is deceived as are so many “educated” Catholics who think that the opinions of theologians are the same as the dogmas and doctrines of the Church.
Anyone who would hold these “saints” up as examples to be followed is leading people astray and, as our Lord said, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea. They are an insult to God and His Saints and it’s time we put an end to this lunacy.
Father, It is amazing that Catholics push these people forth as examples. We have so many Actual Saints to emulate, and ask intercession from. I will eventually get to the scandalous Dr. King. Nobody mentions what this man was about, his
version of “Christianity”, his ties to communists, his immorality…It’s amazing they speak of him in such glowing terms.
What I find confusing is that Dr. King is held up by nearly everyone, but rarely for his pro-life stance.
For a rare counter example, check out this: http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2007/08/niece-of-martin-luther-king-jr-abortion.html
Ken88, “lunacy” is an accurate term to apply to those icons. I don’t need someone to be a saint to see the good in some of what they may have said or done. But it drives me up the wall to see sainthood equated with “did/said some good things.”
That is true, he at least saw that abortion was evil, and, in the US anyway, disproportionally used by black Americans. Margaret Sanger was an overt racist, who despised blacks, jews, slavs, italians, etc.. pretty much anyone not anglo-secular-protestant. Really wretched child-hater.
The politically-correct crowd slice-n-dice people and ideas to fit their vision of the “new America/new Europe”.
Father Bailey, interesting remarks in your comment above. So many people are duped by those society holds in esteem. You are right on the mark.
I would add to this mix Harvey Milk, the gay representative on the city board of supervisors who was shot in San Francisco several years ago – he has been portrayed as a saint by the same painter. Lentz is now a Franciscan in New Mexico I believe. The radicals depicted in Lentz’ series are bogus “saints” for the New Age and pop-culture; persons who stand in defiance of Catholic Doctrine or at least are manipulated thus.
Ken, as a Gandhian Catholic, my Catholicism always comes first, I must ask you not to give such a disparaging view of the Mahatma. I have done tons and tons of research on him, and although he did not have the Catholic faith, he had their ethics and beliefs. Trust me, he was not a racist by the time he returned to India in 1916, and he was a champion of everything good, save Catholicism. He was a great man who was culturally conditioned against the Truth, but who exemplified it in conduct. Please Ken, I beg of you, do some research on Gandhi’s life and works, and you will see that he had a spark of Divine fire. I am a Catholic, a traditionalist Catholic. I would like to think that I would die for my Faith and her Tradition which I cherish above all things, and the truth is, I am currently exploring the monastic vocation because of Gandhi. His humility, austerity and devotion to God as he knew Him inspired me. If a Hindu could reach such heights, imagine what a Christian could do! Please, again, I beg you, research Gandhi, and you will see that he was more than a secular Saint, (I do believe he is in Heaven.)
By the way, I love your site. Many kudos on the beautiful pictures of the traditional Catholic Liturgy.
Gandhian Catholic: I don’t deny he did some laudable things on a natural level, Divine fire?, I don’t know.
However, I am expressing reticence about putting him before the eyes of Catholics as someone to emulate, and having loony “nuns” giving speeches on Gandhi to Catholics. I do consider him a naturally admirable man, who had some insight into the human condition.
Still not a St., no matter what he did.
Terry: That guy Lentz has a website with some of the wackiest “icons” I ever saw. It’s a shame really as some the normal icons he has done are actually quite nice.
Well, what you put up is really misleading. Gandhi was not the same man in South Africa that he was in India. Would we judge St. Augustine by his way of life before his conversion? I should hope not. I also agree, however, about not putting Gandhi in front of any other Saints, but I personally consider him to be the Patron of civil disobedience. No other Saint that I know of gave us such an effective way to fight injustive without violence. I’m someone who despises this new age “spirituality”, but Gandhi is with us on almost all things ethical and moral. He even debated Margaret Sanger on birth control, he was absolutely opposed to contraceptives. That’s something not even the Orthodox can claim.
Gandhi is not a saint. No Catholic can call him a Saint. That title is reserved only for those who have, through thorough scrutiny and the final infallible pronouncement of the Holy Father guided by the Holy Ghost, been so declared. As Gandhi has never even had nor can have his cause introduced for condiseration, he will never be able to have the title Saint placed before his name nor will he ever be so declared.
That he did good things is of no consequence. Good acts and deeds do not a saint make.
GandhianCatholic you consider him the patron of civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is immoral. It is an objective sin. It is not a virtue and is never a virtuous act. The belief that civil disobedience is a virtue is part of the modernist heresy. Thus, what you are saying is that Gandhi is that patron “saint” of a sin. Hmmm. Doesn’t sound very Catholic at all.
Additionally you go on to imply that civil disobedience is nonviolent. Haven’t you heard of the French Revolution? Or should I say the French regicide and clericide? Civil disobedience is always sinful no matter how anyone might try to justify it…. at least in Catholic Moral Theology.
Also, comparing Ghandi to Augustine doesn’t work. Augustine converted to the one true faith. Ghandi did not. There can be no assureance on any level that he was saved just as there can be no assurance on any level that he was damned.
If you are thinking of a monastic vocation because of Gandhi you will be welcome at a monastery that has lost all sense of its Catholic identity and any sense of what it means to be a monk. You might as well go to an ashram. You will most likely not be welcome at a monastery that is truly and thoroughly Catholic. Gandhi has no place in the life of any Catholic. He did good things, but so do many others. If you want to be a monk first read the lives of men like St. Bruno and St. Bernard and St. Benedict. Ghandi would never have made it among them or in a Catholic monastery. Why? It takes a solid and strong faith. Monasticism is a life of penance and suffering, not sitting on cushions chanting ohm with a handful of salt.
Ken and Terry, what’s even worse about Lentz is that he has “remade” legitmate saints into people they never were in order to promote sinful agendas. He has made Sts. Boris and Gleb, Sergius and Bacchus, and St. Aelred of Rievaulx, into gay patron saints. He finds things in the lives of the saints that support an agenda and then exploits it.
Fr. Bailey – you are absolutely correct on that one too. I should post on that so I can get more hate mail.
Fr. Baily,
I think, I don’t know, that you are absolutely wrong on civil disobedience. God’s Law is higher than man’s. If man’s law comes into conflict with God’s, we are obligated, as good Catholics, to defy man and adhere to God. If the U.S. government was openly persecuting Catholics, would you pay taxes? Would you continue to cooperate with a system that is suppressing the Faith? Indeed, I believe that civil disobedience may become a duty if the government continues legalizing gay marriage and propogating the horror of abortion. I can not, in good consciense, comply with evil in any form. As for my vocation, I deeply, deeply admire St. Francis and St. Anthony. I am inspired by them so much, but Gandhi was the one who awoke within me the desire for total service to God. I cannot say why it was him, all I know is that it was. He was in some ways a “monastic”, he took vows of celibacy and poverty, and lived with the poor and the untouchables. While you may say that this means nothing, it meant something to me, and I’m sure it meant something to God.
Gandhi was unbaptized and could make no claim of being invincibly ignorant of Christianity, having studied the Faith in detail. While Holy Mother Church makes no pronouncement on the fate of individuals, leaving that to God’s inscrutable mercy, Gandhi falls into a group that is categorically damned. Is Gandhi is one of the blessed, surely Christ died in vain?
Besides, it is one thing to admire a person’s thoughts and actions; it is quite another to venerate them as saints. Can you imagine St. Thomas Aquinas venerating an icon of Aristotle, yet who had more respect for certain pagans than him? (And, of course, Aristotle could claim to be invincibly ignorant) It seems a bit vain to say “Everyone I respect must’ve gone to Heaven”. You can have hope and pray for his soul, but it causes scandal to suggest, against the teachings of the Church, that there is some substantial hope of him being saved.
Oh, I might add, it is a very well-documented fact that Gandhi worked hard to stop Christian proselytizing under the guise of humanitarian work. How will he explain that to his Judge? How can someone, who was opposed to the work of a true saint like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, be considered a saint? How can the saints be in such opposition to one another? It would be like canonizing Henry VIII as well as Thomas More.
Catholics cannot separate love of God and love of man – only this is considered true charity. How can aid be humanitarian if it does not minister to the whole human? Gandhi seemed quite able to separate the two, half the time being a secular humanist and philanthropist, and half a spiritual mystic.
I often wonder to myself how broad invincible ignorance is. If someone is culturally conditioned against the Truth, how can they be blamed? Gandhi was born into a devout Hindu family, raised in a devout Hindu enviornment, and was taught that Hinduism was true. He came to love God through Hinduism, albeit a misconstrued image of Him, but the love was apparently there. If somebody came up to you and told you to embrace Islam, what would you do? They think that their religion is the only true one. So according to them, because you didn’t jump ship after having established your belief in Catholicism, you’re going to hell.
I do believe that whoever is saved is saved by the Cross, if there is any question about that.
GhandianCatholic,
Regarding the immorality of civil disobedience, what I have written is the teaching of the Church. No Catholic can dissent from that teaching. Personal thought and opinion mean nothing. And remember, that the Church, in her Sacred Magesterium, is incapable of teaching anything contrary to the law of God.
Now, since you brought up God’s laws, how do you justify civil disobedience? Christ himself taught obediance to civil authority, an authority that was persecuting the Jews (Christ himself was a Jew). One is always obliged to support the state according to its conformity to what is right and just. One is always obliged to pay just taxes. Even if the state were persecuting Catholics one is still obliged to pay taxes. One is not obliged to obey laws that are unjust, but these are two different issues. There is a distinction between the state and its laws. To think otherwise is, once again, part of the modernist heresy.
Your thoughts are steeped in modernism and relativism. You have a thoroughly modernist attitude. Had you not called yourself a traditionalist I wouldn’t point this out. I think you are in need of some very serious study and reflection, especially if you continue to identify yourself as a traditionalist.
As to invincible ignorance, that means ignorance that cannot in any way be overcome. It can also mean that a person has no moral freedom. Thus, a person must have no access to the truth or be morally unable to grasp the truth. Cultural conditioning does not excuse from the obligation to seek the truth. Once the grace is given, that is, once the question is asked, and the truth is available to a person and a person is capable of grasping it through normal intelligence, they must do all in their power to seek and understand it. Ghandi was given the grace (all people are), sought the truth, understood it, and REJECTED it. Had he not rejected it he would have entered the Church.
Ghandi can not be said to have come to love God through Hinduism. Hinduism has no Divine truth in it. It’s tenets are contrary to the revelation of Christ. If Ghandi came to love God through Hinduism and did not eventually embrace Catholicism, he is damned. Further, if Ghandi had found God, the true God, and he was a person of integrity, he could have done nothing other than convert. That he did not shows a refusal of divine grace which in turn means damnation. He may have done good things, but it is more likely that Ghandi is in hell than in heaven. And he is there by his own choice. Good deeds do not get one into heaven no matter how well intentioned. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You seem to think that what a person believes to be true makes it true. That is relativism and a lie. Muslims may think their religion is true, but it is not. Because they believe it to be so does not make it so. A Muslim who lives Islam faithfully might be saved so long as he does not reject the truth. That is up to God’s mercy. If he learns the truth and rejects it he is damned.
Modernism teaches that anyone can be saved. It teaches that other religions can save. It teaches that truth is relative. All of these are absolutely contrary to the Gospel and the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Despite what you may have heard, the men in the Church for the past 40+ years have not taught the truth of the faith. Popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests have taught opinion which is mostly heresy. You may have heard Vatican II changed this or that. In matters of Church Teaching it changed nothing. It couldn’t without making a liar out of our Lord.
You are, of course, free to believe what you will. But it is my responsibility to inform you that you are in error and if you persist you will lose your soul.
You can’t be saved by what you reject and Ghandi rejected the Cross.
I do not think that just because someone believes something is true, it is. I believe in one objective truth, as embodied in Catholicism. For you to presume otherwise is rather uncharitable. If I am guilty of modernism, I would really like Church documents that condemn my ideas, not just being told so. I am completely open to being proved wrong. If the magisterium says I am in error, I want to be taught. I want to learn to correct my errors so that I can serve God to the fullest. Right now, however, I can see nothing wrong with civil disobedience or my interperetation of invincible ignorance.
I second Gandian’s request for instructive documentation, although I am in disagreement with him in most points under discussion, and probably many more besides.
I hear it argued often that Catholic morality requires submission to the laws of an unjust regime. Sometimes the argument is that only the directly unjust laws may be disobeyed, and sometimes that only demands to sin may be resisted. I can find nothing indicating either case in the teachings of the Church or in historical precedent.
My understanding has always been that resisting an unjust regime (eg, certain times in France, Mexico, etc) may be justifiable (I stress may be, of course), and that it is only the laws which are necessary for the common good that must be obeyed.
So, under my understanding, it would be a sin to (without a good reason) run red lights and undermine public safety, but it would not be wrong to avoid taxes which are not applied to purposes serving the common good.
If there is a reason that all laws must be obeyed, please, point me to it.
Maybe this from the C.C.C. will help:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
…
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
“I do not think that just because someone believes something is true, it is.”
…and that is the point when you just walk away.
Beating your head on a wall would be more effective than having a rational discussion at this point.
Unfortunately I don’t have the time to do the research for you to provide you with documents, especially since it would require going through eight years of formal study of philosophy and theology and and additional twelve years of continued study of dogmatic, moral, and ascetical theology and basically result in the writing of a thesis.
I do understand why you would make such a request. However, Catholicism is not limited to documents and any attempt to rely on documenting everything will only be met with frustration. God has given us the use of reason. This coupled with the study of the sacred sciences is what I draw on and I have no need to provide anyone with documentation in blog comments as I have no need to do so when preaching.
I do, however, think it is grossly unfair of anyone to ask a priest to document what he posits when they have neither studied the sacred sciences nor documented what they have posited first, and done so according to solid academic practice. Actually, it’s rather insulting, though I do not take it that way because many priests and bishops spew heresy and opinion as if it came from the mouth of God. I am not one of them. You can take my word or not. Your choice. You say you are a traditionalist. Would you require the same of bishops Fellay or Williamson?
My role is to inform you of the teaching of the Church. That I have done. You can take it or leave it.
You wrote, and I quote: “I do not think that just because someone believes something is true, it is. I believe in one objective truth, as embodied in Catholicism. For you to presume otherwise is rather uncharitable.” Perhaps you should read more carefully. What I wrote was: “You seem to think that what a person believes to be true makes it true.” Note the word “seems.” Apparently you missed it. I used it because that is how you present yourself.
I wrote that you are steeped in modernism. That is based on what you wrote in number 14 above. The entire paragraph is rife with modernism and relativeism, though perhaps you cannot see it. You accept the notion that civil disobediance is moral. That is a modernist idea. Read Pius X. You cite primacy of conscience. However, an appeal to conscience is only valid if one’s conscience is formed in line with the Church. The fact that you accept civil disobedience as moral shows it isn’t. Therefor you cannot validly appeal to conscience. The idea that one can simply “appeal to conscience” and act and that makes one’s act moral is a modernist idea. Read Aquinas, Liguori, and Pius X. Since you don’t want to agree with me do the reading and study yourself…. which is your moral obligation, and then ask me for documentation.
The evil of modernism is that it has infected the thought of even the most zealous of Catholics and they are unaware of it. I include myself. If anyone thinks they are not infected with it to some degree they are deceived. Modernism is the father of lies’ greatest triumph.
I do not point these things out to put you down or be uncharitable. I do it because I am concerned for your spiritual welfare. If I wasn’t, I would not have written anything. The world, even the majority of priests and bishops seem to have forgotten the basic truth that one is either saved or lost. We must live first to save our own soul and then those of others. Nothing else matters. It’s either heaven or hell……. for all eternity.