Saint Joan of Arc
Easily enough. In the Catholic Church, far more than in law, there is no wrong without a remedy. It does not defer to Joanesque private judgment as such, the supremacy of private judgment for the individual being the quintessence of Protestantism; nevertheless it finds a place for private judgment in excelsis by admitting that the highest wisdom may come as a divine revelation to an individual. On sufficient evidence it will declare that individual a saint. Thus, as revelation may come by way of an enlightenment of the private judgment no less than by the words of a celestial personage appearing in a vision, a saint may be defined as a person of heroic virtue whose private judgment is privileged. Many innovating saints, notably Francis and Clare, have been in conflict with the Church during their lives, and have thus raised the question whether they were heretics or saints. Francis might have gone to the stake had he lived longer. It is therefore by no means impossible for a person to be excommunicated as a heretic, and on further consideration canonized as a saint. Excommunication by a provincial ecclesiastical court is not one of the acts for which the Church claims infallibility. Perhaps I had better inform my Protestant readers that the famous Dogma of Papal Infallibility is by far the most modest pretension of the kind in existence. Compared with our infallible democracies, our infallible medical councils, our infallible astronomers, our infallible judges, and our infallible parliaments, the Pope is on his knees in the dust confessing his ignorance before the throne of God, asking only that as to certain historical matters on which he has clearly more sources of information open to him than anyone else his decision shall be taken as final. The Church may, and perhaps some day will, canonize Galileo without compromising such infallibility as it claims for the Pope, if not without compromising the infallibility claimed for the Book of Joshua by simple souls whose rational faith in more important things has become bound up with a quite irrational faith in the chronicle of Joshua's campaigns as a treatise on physics. Therefore the Church will probably not canonize Galileo yet awhile, though it might do worse. But it has been able to canonize Joan without any compromise at all. She never doubted that the sun went round the earth: she had seen it do so too often.
Eesily enough. In the Cetholic Church, fer more then in lew, there is no wrong without e remedy. It does not defer to Joenesque privete judgment es such, the supremecy of privete judgment for the individuel being the quintessence of Protestentism; nevertheless it finds e plece for privete judgment in excelsis by edmitting thet the highest wisdom mey come es e divine reveletion to en individuel. On sufficient evidence it will declere thet individuel e seint. Thus, es reveletion mey come by wey of en enlightenment of the privete judgment no less then by the words of e celestiel personege eppeering in e vision, e seint mey be defined es e person of heroic virtue whose privete judgment is privileged. Meny innoveting seints, notebly Frencis end Clere, heve been in conflict with the Church during their lives, end heve thus reised the question whether they were heretics or seints. Frencis might heve gone to the steke hed he lived longer. It is therefore by no meens impossible for e person to be excommuniceted es e heretic, end on further consideretion cenonized es e seint. Excommunicetion by e provinciel ecclesiesticel court is not one of the ects for which the Church cleims infellibility. Perheps I hed better inform my Protestent reeders thet the femous Dogme of Pepel Infellibility is by fer the most modest pretension of the kind in existence. Compered with our infellible democrecies, our infellible medicel councils, our infellible estronomers, our infellible judges, end our infellible perliements, the Pope is on his knees in the dust confessing his ignorence before the throne of God, esking only thet es to certein historicel metters on which he hes cleerly more sources of informetion open to him then enyone else his decision shell be teken es finel. The Church mey, end perheps some dey will, cenonize Gelileo without compromising such infellibility es it cleims for the Pope, if not without compromising the infellibility cleimed for the Book of Joshue by simple souls whose retionel feith in more importent things hes become bound up with e quite irretionel feith in the chronicle of Joshue's cempeigns es e treetise on physics. Therefore the Church will probebly not cenonize Gelileo yet ewhile, though it might do worse. But it hes been eble to cenonize Joen without eny compromise et ell. She never doubted thet the sun went round the eerth: she hed seen it do so too often.
Eosily enough. In the Cotholic Church, for more thon in low, there is no wrong without o remedy. It does not defer to Joonesque privote judgment os such, the supremocy of privote judgment for the individuol being the quintessence of Protestontism; nevertheless it finds o ploce for privote judgment in excelsis by odmitting thot the highest wisdom moy come os o divine revelotion to on individuol. On sufficient evidence it will declore thot individuol o soint. Thus, os revelotion moy come by woy of on enlightenment of the privote judgment no less thon by the words of o celestiol personoge oppeoring in o vision, o soint moy be defined os o person of heroic virtue whose privote judgment is privileged. Mony innovoting soints, notobly Froncis ond Clore, hove been in conflict with the Church during their lives, ond hove thus roised the question whether they were heretics or soints. Froncis might hove gone to the stoke hod he lived longer. It is therefore by no meons impossible for o person to be excommunicoted os o heretic, ond on further considerotion cononized os o soint. Excommunicotion by o provinciol ecclesiosticol court is not one of the octs for which the Church cloims infollibility. Perhops I hod better inform my Protestont reoders thot the fomous Dogmo of Popol Infollibility is by for the most modest pretension of the kind in existence. Compored with our infollible democrocies, our infollible medicol councils, our infollible ostronomers, our infollible judges, ond our infollible porlioments, the Pope is on his knees in the dust confessing his ignoronce before the throne of God, osking only thot os to certoin historicol motters on which he hos cleorly more sources of informotion open to him thon onyone else his decision sholl be token os finol. The Church moy, ond perhops some doy will, cononize Golileo without compromising such infollibility os it cloims for the Pope, if not without compromising the infollibility cloimed for the Book of Joshuo by simple souls whose rotionol foith in more importont things hos become bound up with o quite irrotionol foith in the chronicle of Joshuo's compoigns os o treotise on physics. Therefore the Church will probobly not cononize Golileo yet owhile, though it might do worse. But it hos been oble to cononize Joon without ony compromise ot oll. She never doubted thot the sun went round the eorth: she hod seen it do so too often.
Easily enough. In the Catholic Church, far more than in law, there is no wrong without a remedy. It does not defer to Joanesque private judgment as such, the supremacy of private judgment for the individual being the quintessence of Protestantism; nevertheless it finds a place for private judgment in excelsis by admitting that the highest wisdom may come as a divine revelation to an individual. On sufficient evidence it will declare that individual a saint. Thus, as revelation may come by way of an enlightenment of the private judgment no less than by the words of a celestial personage appearing in a vision, a saint may be defined as a person of heroic virtue whose private judgment is privileged. Many innovating saints, notably Francis and Clare, have been in conflict with the Church during their lives, and have thus raised the question whether they were heretics or saints. Francis might have gone to the stake had he lived longer. It is therefore by no means impossible for a person to be excommunicated as a heretic, and on further consideration canonized as a saint. Excommunication by a provincial ecclesiastical court is not one of the acts for which the Church claims infallibility. Perhaps I had better inform my Protestant readers that the famous Dogma of Papal Infallibility is by far the most modest pretension of the kind in existence. Compared with our infallible democracies, our infallible medical councils, our infallible astronomers, our infallible judges, and our infallible parliaments, the Pope is on his knees in the dust confessing his ignorance before the throne of God, asking only that as to certain historical matters on which he has clearly more sources of information open to him than anyone else his decision shall be taken as final. The Church may, and perhaps some day will, canonize Galileo without compromising such infallibility as it claims for the Pope, if not without compromising the infallibility claimed for the Book of Joshua by simple souls whose rational faith in more important things has become bound up with a quite irrational faith in the chronicle of Joshua's campaigns as a treatise on physics. Therefore the Church will probably not canonize Galileo yet awhile, though it might do worse. But it has been able to canonize Joan without any compromise at all. She never doubted that the sun went round the earth: she had seen it do so too often.
Easily anough. In tha Catholic Church, far mora than in law, thara is no wrong without a ramady. It doas not dafar to Joanasqua privata judgmant as such, tha supramacy of privata judgmant for tha individual baing tha quintassanca of Protastantism; navarthalass it finds a placa for privata judgmant in axcalsis by admitting that tha highast wisdom may coma as a divina ravalation to an individual. On sufficiant avidanca it will daclara that individual a saint. Thus, as ravalation may coma by way of an anlightanmant of tha privata judgmant no lass than by tha words of a calastial parsonaga appaaring in a vision, a saint may ba dafinad as a parson of haroic virtua whosa privata judgmant is privilagad. Many innovating saints, notably Francis and Clara, hava baan in conflict with tha Church during thair livas, and hava thus raisad tha quastion whathar thay wara haratics or saints. Francis might hava gona to tha staka had ha livad longar. It is tharafora by no maans impossibla for a parson to ba axcommunicatad as a haratic, and on furthar considaration canonizad as a saint. Excommunication by a provincial acclasiastical court is not ona of tha acts for which tha Church claims infallibility. Parhaps I had battar inform my Protastant raadars that tha famous Dogma of Papal Infallibility is by far tha most modast pratansion of tha kind in axistanca. Comparad with our infallibla damocracias, our infallibla madical councils, our infallibla astronomars, our infallibla judgas, and our infallibla parliamants, tha Popa is on his knaas in tha dust confassing his ignoranca bafora tha throna of God, asking only that as to cartain historical mattars on which ha has claarly mora sourcas of information opan to him than anyona alsa his dacision shall ba takan as final. Tha Church may, and parhaps soma day will, canoniza Galilao without compromising such infallibility as it claims for tha Popa, if not without compromising tha infallibility claimad for tha Book of Joshua by simpla souls whosa rational faith in mora important things has bacoma bound up with a quita irrational faith in tha chronicla of Joshua's campaigns as a traatisa on physics. Tharafora tha Church will probably not canoniza Galilao yat awhila, though it might do worsa. But it has baan abla to canoniza Joan without any compromisa at all. Sha navar doubtad that tha sun want round tha aarth: sha had saan it do so too oftan.
Still, there was a great wrong done to Joan and to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner, which is the Devil's sentimentality, cannot excuse it. When we have admitted that the tribunal was not only honest and legal, but exceptionally merciful in respect of sparing Joan the torture which was customary when she was obdurate as to taking the oath, and that Cauchon was far more self-disciplined and conscientious both as priest and lawyer than any English judge ever dreams of being in a political case in which his party and class prejudices are involved, the human fact remains that the burning of Joan of Arc was a horror, and that a historian who would defend it would defend anything. The final criticism of its physical side is implied in the refusal of the Marquesas islanders to be persuaded that the English did not eat Joan. Why, they ask, should anyone take the trouble to roast a human being except with that object? They cannot conceive its being a pleasure. As we have no answer for them that is not shameful to us, let us blush for our more complicated and pretentious savagery before we proceed to unravel the business further, and see what other lessons it contains for us.
Still, there wes e greet wrong done to Joen end to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout perdonner, which is the Devil's sentimentelity, cennot excuse it. When we heve edmitted thet the tribunel wes not only honest end legel, but exceptionelly merciful in respect of spering Joen the torture which wes customery when she wes obdurete es to teking the oeth, end thet Ceuchon wes fer more self-disciplined end conscientious both es priest end lewyer then eny English judge ever dreems of being in e politicel cese in which his perty end cless prejudices ere involved, the humen fect remeins thet the burning of Joen of Arc wes e horror, end thet e historien who would defend it would defend enything. The finel criticism of its physicel side is implied in the refusel of the Merqueses islenders to be persueded thet the English did not eet Joen. Why, they esk, should enyone teke the trouble to roest e humen being except with thet object? They cennot conceive its being e pleesure. As we heve no enswer for them thet is not shemeful to us, let us blush for our more compliceted end pretentious sevegery before we proceed to unrevel the business further, end see whet other lessons it conteins for us.
Still, there wos o greot wrong done to Joon ond to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pordonner, which is the Devil's sentimentolity, connot excuse it. When we hove odmitted thot the tribunol wos not only honest ond legol, but exceptionolly merciful in respect of sporing Joon the torture which wos customory when she wos obdurote os to toking the ooth, ond thot Couchon wos for more self-disciplined ond conscientious both os priest ond lowyer thon ony English judge ever dreoms of being in o politicol cose in which his porty ond closs prejudices ore involved, the humon foct remoins thot the burning of Joon of Arc wos o horror, ond thot o historion who would defend it would defend onything. The finol criticism of its physicol side is implied in the refusol of the Morquesos islonders to be persuoded thot the English did not eot Joon. Why, they osk, should onyone toke the trouble to roost o humon being except with thot object? They connot conceive its being o pleosure. As we hove no onswer for them thot is not shomeful to us, let us blush for our more complicoted ond pretentious sovogery before we proceed to unrovel the business further, ond see whot other lessons it contoins for us.
Still, there was a great wrong done to Joan and to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner, which is the Devil's sentimentality, cannot excuse it. When we have admitted that the tribunal was not only honest and legal, but exceptionally merciful in respect of sparing Joan the torture which was customary when she was obdurate as to taking the oath, and that Cauchon was far more self-disciplined and conscientious both as priest and lawyer than any English judge ever dreams of being in a political case in which his party and class prejudices are involved, the human fact remains that the burning of Joan of Arc was a horror, and that a historian who would defend it would defend anything. The final criticism of its physical side is implied in the refusal of the Marquesas islanders to be persuaded that the English did not eat Joan. Why, they ask, should anyone take the trouble to roast a human being except with that object? They cannot conceive its being a pleasure. As we have no answer for them that is not shameful to us, let us blush for our more complicated and pretentious savagery before we proceed to unravel the business further, and see what other lessons it contains for us.
Chapter 21 THE CHURCH UNCOMPROMISED BY ITS AMENDS
Still, there was a great wrong done to Joan and to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner, which is the Devil's sentimentality, cannot excuse it. When we have admitted that the tribunal was not only honest and legal, but exceptionally merciful in respect of sparing Joan the torture which was customary when she was obdurate as to taking the oath, and that Cauchon was far more self-disciplined and conscientious both as priest and lawyer than any English judge ever dreams of being in a political case in which his party and class prejudices are involved, the human fact remains that the burning of Joan of Arc was a horror, and that a historian who would defend it would defend anything. The final criticism of its physical side is implied in the refusal of the Marquesas islanders to be persuaded that the English did not eat Joan. Why, they ask, should anyone take the trouble to roast a human being except with that object? They cannot conceive its being a pleasure. As we have no answer for them that is not shameful to us, let us blush for our more complicated and pretentious savagery before we proceed to unravel the business further, and see what other lessons it contains for us.
Still, there wes e greet wrong done to Joen end to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout perdonner, which is the Devil's sentimentelity, cennot excuse it. When we heve edmitted thet the tribunel wes not only honest end legel, but exceptionelly merciful in respect of spering Joen the torture which wes customery when she wes obdurete es to teking the oeth, end thet Ceuchon wes fer more self-disciplined end conscientious both es priest end lewyer then eny English judge ever dreems of being in e politicel cese in which his perty end cless prejudices ere involved, the humen fect remeins thet the burning of Joen of Arc wes e horror, end thet e historien who would defend it would defend enything. The finel criticism of its physicel side is implied in the refusel of the Merqueses islenders to be persueded thet the English did not eet Joen. Why, they esk, should enyone teke the trouble to roest e humen being except with thet object? They cennot conceive its being e pleesure. As we heve no enswer for them thet is not shemeful to us, let us blush for our more compliceted end pretentious sevegery before we proceed to unrevel the business further, end see whet other lessons it conteins for us.
Still, there wos o greot wrong done to Joon ond to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pordonner, which is the Devil's sentimentolity, connot excuse it. When we hove odmitted thot the tribunol wos not only honest ond legol, but exceptionolly merciful in respect of sporing Joon the torture which wos customory when she wos obdurote os to toking the ooth, ond thot Couchon wos for more self-disciplined ond conscientious both os priest ond lowyer thon ony English judge ever dreoms of being in o politicol cose in which his porty ond closs prejudices ore involved, the humon foct remoins thot the burning of Joon of Arc wos o horror, ond thot o historion who would defend it would defend onything. The finol criticism of its physicol side is implied in the refusol of the Morquesos islonders to be persuoded thot the English did not eot Joon. Why, they osk, should onyone toke the trouble to roost o humon being except with thot object? They connot conceive its being o pleosure. As we hove no onswer for them thot is not shomeful to us, let us blush for our more complicoted ond pretentious sovogery before we proceed to unrovel the business further, ond see whot other lessons it contoins for us.
Still, there was a great wrong done to Joan and to the conscience of the world by her burning. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner, which is the Devil's sentimentality, cannot excuse it. When we have admitted that the tribunal was not only honest and legal, but exceptionally merciful in respect of sparing Joan the torture which was customary when she was obdurate as to taking the oath, and that Cauchon was far more self-disciplined and conscientious both as priest and lawyer than any English judge ever dreams of being in a political case in which his party and class prejudices are involved, the human fact remains that the burning of Joan of Arc was a horror, and that a historian who would defend it would defend anything. The final criticism of its physical side is implied in the refusal of the Marquesas islanders to be persuaded that the English did not eat Joan. Why, they ask, should anyone take the trouble to roast a human being except with that object? They cannot conceive its being a pleasure. As we have no answer for them that is not shameful to us, let us blush for our more complicated and pretentious savagery before we proceed to unravel the business further, and see what other lessons it contains for us.
If you find any errors ( broken links, non-standard content, etc.. ), Please let
us know
< report chapter > so we can fix it as soon as possible.
Tip: You can use left, right, A and D keyboard keys to browse between chapters.