Anger

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 307 of 447 · 20 per page

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Is it Lawful for A Religious to Teach?CONSTANT efforts have been made to hinder religious from becoming learned, and thereby, to ensure their inability to teach. The words of our Lord, “But be not ‘you called, Rabbi” (Matt. xxiii. 8), have been quoted in defence of these measures. It has been maintained, that, as, these words are a counsel to be observed by the perfect, Religious, as professors of perfection, ought in deference to them, to abstain from, teaching. St. Jerome, likewise has been brought forward as an advocate against the propriety of teaching being undertaken by religious. This saint, in his epistle to Riparius and Desiderius against Vigilantius (and the words are quoted in Gratian, xvi. Quaest. I), writes thus: “The office of a monk is to mourn, not to teach.” Again, in VII. Quaest. I, cap. Hoc nequaquam, it is said, “The life of monks is one of subjection and discipline, not of teaching, nor ruling, nor of being pastors over others.” And as canons regular and other religious are classed as monks (as it is stated in Extra de postulando, ex parte, and Quod Dei timor), it follows that no religious way lawfully teach. It is further argued, that teaching is contrary to the vow of a religious, whereby he renounces the world. “For all that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” by which we understand riches, pleasures, and honour. Now teaching is considered to be an honour; and this theory is thought to be supported by the Gloss upon the words of St, Matthew (iv. 5), “He set Him upon the pinnacle.” “In Palestine,” says the Gloss, “ the roofs were flat, and the Doctors sat thereon, and spoke to the people. The devil seduced many of them with vainglory. For they were puffed up by the honour of teaching.” On these words is based the conclusion that teaching is contrary to the vow of religious. Again, it is urged, that, Religious are bound as stringently, to practise perfect humility, as they are obliged to observe perfect poverty. As their vow of poverty forbids them to possess anything of their own, so the humility, to which they are bound, does not permit them to enjoy any honour. Teaching is, as has been proved, an honour. It is not lawful, consequently, for religious to teach.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  8.-9. To the eighth and ninth objections we reply that the authors cited in them, speak of the self-praise whereby some men commend themselves inspired by motives of vain glory. 10. The tenth objection is answered by the following passage from the interlinear commentary on the words, “If I glorify only myself,” etc. The glory of those who glorify themselves is nothing. But the case is far otherwise with those whom God glorifies by the bestowal of His heavenly favours. CHAPTER 2 The Charges That Religious Resist Their DetractorsWE will next consider the arguments, whereby, the assailants of religious try to prove that they are not justified in offering any resistance to such as detract them. 1. The Gloss on the words (1 Cor. xii.), “ No one can say the Lord Jesus,” etc., has the following passage: “ Christians ought to be humble and to bear reproach and not to desire to be flattered.” Therefore, religious who do not endure reproach prove that they are not true Christians. 2. In 2 Cor. xii. 12, St. Paul says: “The signs of my Apostleship have been wrought on you in all patience.” On which text the Gloss observes: “The Apostle makes special mention of patience, as being an essential of virtue.” Hence they who perform the apostolic function of preaching ought to be remarkable for their patience, according to the words of the Psalmist (xci. 15), “They will be very patient, so that they can proclaim” [Vulgate]. They ought to bear with the malice of their detractors and to offer no resistance to it. 3. “Have I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” asks St. Paul (Gal. iv. 16). The comment of the Gloss on this verse is: “The carnal-minded man will not suffer himself to be reproved as though he were in the wrong.” Hence they who will not bear rebuke show that they live according to the flesh. Again, on the words in Phil. iii., “Beware of dogs,” the Gloss says: “Understand that such men are dogs, not because they lack reason, but because they are used to barking at truth to which they are unaccustomed.” Again “as dogs,” says the Gloss, “obey habit rather than reason, so false apostles bark at truth in an irrational manner and rend it.” They therefore who rage against those who reprove them for their vices, hereby prove that they are false Apostles. 4. St. Gregory says, in his Pastorals: “He who is bent upon wrong doing, and desires that others should conceal his sin, shows that he loves himself better than truth. For, he will not suffer truth to be defended at his own cost.” “God is truth” (John xiv.). They, therefore, who will not allow themselves to be corrected, show that they love themselves better than God. They are, consequently, in a state of damnation.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  As for Margaret's behaviour towards Charles V., let us again have recourse to Brantome, whom we shall quote as often as we can : " She spoke so bravely and so handsomely to the emperor concerning his bad treatment of the king her brother that he was quite astonished, setting before him his ingratitude and felony wherewith he, the vassal, dealt towards his lord on account of Flanders ; then she reproached him with the hardness of his heart for being so devoid of pity with regard to so great and so good a king ; and said that acting in tliat manner was not the way to win a heart so noble and royal and so sovereign as that of the king her brother ; and that, should he die in consequence of his rigorous treatment, his death would not remain unpunished, for he had children who would be grown up some day, and would take signal vengeance. These words, pronounced so bravely, and with so much passion, made the emperor bethink himself, so that he moderated his behaviour, and visited the king, and promised him many fine things, which he did not, however, perform for that time. But if this queen spoke so well to the emperor, she did still more so to those of his council, where she had audience, and where she triumphed with her fine speaking and graceful manner, of which she had no lack." Margaret took great pains to hasten the conclusion of the marriage between Francis I. and Eleonore of Austria, widow of the King of Portugal, rightly regarding the alliance as the surest means of a prompt deliverance. Though the royal widow had been promised to the Constable of Bourbon, the emperor did not hesitate to sacrifice his engagement with the illustrious deserter to the interests of his policy. He himself, fascinated by Margaret's talent and graces, entertained for a moment the idea of a union with her, and sent a letter to the regent containing a distinct proposal to that effect. In the same letter the emperor said, with reference to the Con- stable of Bourbon, that "there were good marriages in France, and quite enough for him ; naming Madame Renee with, whom jjxvi MEMOIR OF MARGARET,

• From Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (1901)

  "After all, you don't belong to yourself alone," continued the Consul, "but I shouldn't care if you make a fool of yourself personally... and what doesn't you make a fool of yourself with !" he cried. He was pale, and the little blue veins on his narrow temples, from which his hair receded in two indentations, were clearly visible. He raised one of his light eyebrows, and even the stiff, long, drawn-out tips of his mustache had something angry about them while he threw his hands out and said his words sideways in front of Christian's feet on the gravel path... "You're doing yourself ridiculous with your love affairs, with your harlequins, with your illnesses, with your means against it..." “Oh, Thomas,” said Christian, shaking his head very seriously and raising a forefinger in a somewhat awkward manner... “As for that, you can’t quite understand that, you see... The thing is... One has to have a conscience, so to speak keep in order... I don't know if you know that... Grabow prescribed me an ointment for the neck muscles... good! If I don't use them, if I fail to use them, I feel all lost and helpless, restless and uncertain and anxious and disordered and I can't swallow. But when I have used them, I feel that I have done my duty and am all right; then I have a clear conscience, I am calm and content, and swallowing is wonderful. The ointment doesn't do it, I don't think, you know... but the thing is that such an idea, "Oh yes -! Oh yes!' cried the Consul, holding his head for a moment with both hands. 'Do it! Act accordingly! But don't talk about it! Don't gossip about it! Leave other people alone with your disgusting finesse! Even with this indecent gossip you make yourself look ridiculous from morning to night! But I tell you this, I repeat this to you: I shouldn't care how much you make a fool of yourself personally; but I forbid you, can you hear me? I forbid you to compromise the company in the way you did last night!" To this Christian did not answer, but slowly ran his hand over his already sparse reddish-blond hair and, with an uneasy seriousness on his face, let his eyes wander absently and unsteadily. No doubt he was still dealing with what he had last said. There was a pause. Thomas walked in quiet desperation. "All merchants are swindlers, you say," he began again... "Good! are you tired of your job? do you regret it to have become a merchant? You got Father's permission back then..." "Yes, Tom," said Christian thoughtfully; »I would really prefer to study! At university, you know, it must be very nice... You go there when you feel like it, of your own free will, sit down and listen, like in the theater...” “Like in the theater... Oh, you belong in the café chantant as a buffoon... I'm not kidding!

• From Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (1901)

  But then they started talking about the Zollverein... oh, Consul Buddenbrook was enthusiastic about the Zollverein! "What a creation, gentlemen!" he cried, turning around briskly after a guided push, towards the other billiard table, where the first word had been spoken. "We should join at the first opportunity..." Herr Köppen, however, did not share this opinion, no, he actually sniffed at opposition. »And our independence? And our independence?” he asked, offended, leaning belligerently on his cue. 'How about that? Would Hamburg agree to take part in this Prussian invention? Shouldn't we be incorporated right away, Buddenbrook? God preserve us, no, what should we do with the Zollverein, I want to know! Isn't everything going well?..." »Yes, you with your red spawn, Köppen! And then maybe with the Russian products, I won't say anything about that. But nothing else is imported! And as far as exports are concerned, well, we send a little grain to Holland and England, of course!... Oh no, unfortunately not everything is going well. By God, other business was once done here... But in the Zollverein, Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein would be opened up to us... And it's impossible to calculate how the Propre business would fare..." 'But I beg you, Buddenbrook,' Grätjens began, bending over the billiard table and carefully aiming the stick in his bony hand, 'this Zollverein ... I don't understand it. Our system is so simple and practical, isn't it? The declaration of citizenship...” "A fine old institution." The Consul had to admit that. 'No, really, Herr Consul - if you find something 'nice'!' Senator Langhals was a little indignant: 'I'm not a businessman... but if I'm to be honest - no, the one with the civil oath is nonsense, gradually, I must say! It's become a formality that's pretty lightly brushed aside... and the state is left behind. People tell each other things that are really bad. I am convinced that entry into the Zollverein by the Senate..." "Then there's a conflict -!" Herr Köppen threw the cue on the floor in a fit of anger. He said "Kongflick," and now put aside all caution about the pronunciation. 'A Kongflick, that's fine with me. Nah, all due respect, Mr. Senator, but you're not going to help, God forbid!" And he talked heatedly about decision-making committees and state welfare and civil oaths and free states... Thank God Jean Jacques Hoffstede arrived!

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  In the beginning of the year 1522, Lautrec, one of the king's favourites, who commanded his forces in Italy, lost in a few days all the advantages which Francis had gained by the victory of Marignano. He returned to Paris with only two attendants, and sought an audience of the king, who refused at first to receive him. Finally, at the intercession of the Constable of Bourbon, Francis allowed Lautrec to appear be- fore him, and, after loading him with reproaches, demanded what excuse he could offer for himself. Lautrec calmly replied, " The troops I commanded, not having been paid, refused to follow me, and I was left alone." — "What!" said the king, " I sent you four hundred thousand crowns to Genoa, and Semblan^ay, the superintendent of finance, forwarded you three hundred thousand." — " Sire, I have received nothing." • — Semblangay being summoned to the presence, " Father," said the king (who addressed him in that way on account of his great age), " come hither and tell us if you have not, in pursuance of my order, sent M. de Lautrec the sum of three hundred thousand crowns ?" — " Sire," replied the superintend- ent, " I am prepared to prove that I delivered the sum to the duchess your mother, that she might employ it as you say." — " Very well," said the king, and w^ent into his mother's room to question her. Louise of Savoy threw the whole blame on Semblan^ay, who was immediately confronted with her. He persisted in his first statement, and the duchess was forced to confess that she had received the greater part of the sum in question, but she alleged that the money was due to her by the superintendent, and she did not see why her private income should be applied to the Italian expedition. Francis most bitterly upbraided his mother for thus embezzling the money of the state, but his wrath fell more heavily on the minister, whom he found to have been guilty of culpable complaisance towards her. The unfortunate Semblan^ay was arrested, com- missioners were appointed to examine his accounts, and, being QUEEN OF NA VARRE. xix condemned by their report, he was hung on the gibbet at Monfaucon, on the 9th of August, 1527.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  " You may thank your own bad thoughts for having fared badly," said Longarine, " for where is the woman with a proper sense of decorum who would have you for a lover after what you have just said.'' " " There are those," he retorted, " who did not think me intolerable, and who would not have exchanged their own sense of decorum for yours. But let us say no more about it, in order that my anger may shock no one, and may not shock myself. Let us think to whom Dagoucin will give his voice." " I give it to Parlamente," he replied at once, " per- suaded as I am that she must know better than anyone what is honourable and perfect friendship." " Since you elect me to tell a story," said Parlamente, " I will relate to you one which occurred to a lady who had always been one of my good friends, and who has never concealed anything from me." Second day. \ Q UEEN OF NA VARRE. 1 23 NOVEL XIII. The captain of a galley, under pretence of devotion, fell in love with a demoiselle. What happened in consequence. There was in the household of the regent, mother of King Francis, a very devout lady, married to a gentle- man of the same character. Though her husband was old, and she young and fair, nevertheless she served him and loved him as though he had been the handsomest young man in the world. To leave him no cause of uneasiness, she made it her care to live with him like a woman of his own age, shunning all company, all magnif- icence in dress, all dances and diversions such as women are usually fond of, and making the service of God her sole pleasure and recreation. One day her husband told her that from his youth upwards he had longed to make the journey to Jerusalem, and he asked her what she thought of the matter. She, whose only thought was how to please him, replied : " Since God has deprived us of children, my dear, and has given us wealth enough, I should be strongly inclined to spend a part of it in perform- ing that sacred journey ; for, whether you go to Jerusalem or elsewhere, I am resolved to accompany, and never forsake you." The good man was so pleased with this reply that he fancied himself already standing on Mount Calvary. Just at this time there arrived at court a gentleman who had served long against the Turks, and who was come to obtain the king's approval for a projected enterprise against a fortress belonging to the Ottomans, the success of which was likely to be very advantageous to Chris- 124 THE HEPTAMERON OF THE iNovel \l

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Doubt exists about future events, and also about the workings of a man’s heart. Nevertheless, the enemies of the religious life do not hesitate to assert that religious will eventually become both immoral and unbelieving. They also profess to be able to read the hearts of religious, and accuse them of desiring popularity, of seeking their own glory instead of the glory of God, and of many other things of like nature. Such accusations convict their authors of rash judgment. “Let us not therefore judge one another, any more,” says St. Paul (Rom. xiv. 13). The Gloss hereon observes: “We judge rashly, if we pass sentence on the secret things of another man’s heart, or if we foretell what a man, who now seems either good or bad, will be in the future.” Such judgments proceed either from pride or envy; and the authors of them prefer rather to blame and to backbite other men, than to correct or improve them. They likewise lay claim to the power of Almighty God, to whom alone it belongs to read the future and the secrets of man’s heart. Isaiah says (xli. 23), “Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods.” Jeremiah likewise says (xvii. 9): “The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable; who can know it? I am the Lord who search the heart.” St. Paul writes (1 Cor. iv. 5), “Judge not before the time.” The Gloss remarks on these words: “It is an insult to the judge, if his slave presume to anticipate him in pronouncing sentence.” These words apply to those who pass judgment on causes which the Lord reserves to Himself. CHAPTER 3 The Enemies of Religious Propagate Distinct Falsehoods Concerning Them, Affirming, for Instance That Religious Are False Apostles, False Prophets, and False ChristsWE have still to consider the falsehoods propagated against religious by their enemies. The opponents of religious are not content with calumniating their victims; they strive likewise to cast upon them suspicion of being guilty of heinous crimes. They assert that religious are worthy of detestation, and that they are unfit society for other men. They fill up the measure of their detraction by declaring religious to be responsible for all the evils which have ever come upon the Church, or which ever shall assail her; and they declare that religious are likewise accountable for every trouble under which the Church at present labours. They are further accused of being the false apostles who disturbed the primitive Church, and also of being the thieves, robbers and “creepers into houses” against which the Church has for all time been warned; and they are also said to be those heralds of Antichrist who, in the latter days of the Church, are to bring danger upon her.

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 103 < Lecture 15  Early Opposition to the Christian Message yChristians were not generally arrested. Most lived in peace. yWe have only one incident of Roman imperial involvement at the highest level in the 1st century, a truly exceptional and widely misunderstood case involving the emperor Nero. `Even though Christianity was not an illegal religion, there were occasions when Christians aroused the ire of pagans as a meddling and troublemaking group. This ire usually cropped up among neighbors and suspicious others in town. Sometimes the complaints of regular people led low-level administrators to intervene. `There are instances of this in the book of Acts. A good example comes in Acts 16, in which Paul, on one of his missionary journeys, moves from proclaiming Christ to interfering with a pagan religious activity. yOn one of his missionary journeys, Paul and his companions are in the city of Philippi, and there they encounter a slave girl who is possessed by a demon that allows her to predict the future. yShe hounds the apostle and publicly maligns him until, after a few days, he deals with the problem by exorcising the demon. But her owners are incensed because they were making a profit off her demon-inspired ability to tell fortunes. yThey take the Christians up before the local magistrates to complain that the Christians were causing disturbances and proclaiming customs that were opposed to Roman ways. The magistrate has Paul stripped naked, beaten, and thrown in prison. `This lecture isn’t saying that the event happened exactly as described. However, it is indicative of the kind of thing that almost certainly happened in general: Christians were seen as opposing pagan cultic practices and therefore as troublemakers, and they were treated accordingly. `Something broadly similar occurs in Acts 19. yPaul comes to the city of Ephesus and stays some months, doing miracles and preaching.

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 157 < Lecture 23  The Beginnings of a Christian Roman Empire yRather than continuing to subscribe to the idea that everyone should be free to worship as they like—the argument of the earlier Christian apologists—the Christians began to argue that pagan practices should be disallowed. `Christian leaders began to insist that the pagan religions should be stamped out completely. Thus, even before Theodosius’s time, during the reign of Constantine’s sons, there came the writings of the Christian intellectual Firmicus. He cited the Bible to argue that pagans should not merely be forbidden to practice their cults; they should be executed by the state. `This was obviously an extreme view, far in excess of what Theodosius himself promoted in his later legislation. But there were extremist voices out there, and they did have some inf luence, among Christian hoards if nothing else. Violence did occur, even if it was sporadic. Extremism often leads to mob violence. `In one enlightening but disheartening scholarly analysis, the Danish scholar of classical antiquity Troels Myrup Kristensen recounts numerous instances of Christian violence against pagan sites and objects. Throughout the empire, cultic sites were destroyed, and pagan statues were disfigured. `Pagan intellectuals complained about this activity directed against the religious practices that had been followed by their ancestors for generation after generation. A particularly telling instance can be found in the writings of the great pagan scholar Libanius. `Libanius addressed his complaint to the emperor Theodosius himself. He wrote against passionate Christians engaged in mob acts of destruction of all things pagan. He recounted attacks on temples and damage to shrines as well as that the Christians “murdered in their riotings in utter disregard of the name they share.” Examining the Intolerance `It may be hard to understand these acts of Christian intolerance. Isn’t Christianity a religion of love—not just love of one’s neighbor but also love of one’s enemy?

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 103 < Lecture 15  Early Opposition to the Christian Message y Christians were not generally arrested. Most lived in peace. y We have only one incident of Roman imperial involvement at the highest level in the 1st century, a truly exceptional and widely misunderstood case involving the emperor Nero. ` Even though Christianity was not an illegal religion, there were occasions when Christians aroused the ire of pagans as a meddling and troublemaking group. This ire usually cropped up among neighbors and suspicious others in town. Sometimes the complaints of regular people led low-level administrators to intervene. ` There are instances of this in the book of Acts. A good example comes in Acts 16, in which Paul, on one of his missionary journeys, moves from proclaiming Christ to interfering with a pagan religious activity. y On one of his missionary journeys, Paul and his companions are in the city of Philippi, and there they encounter a slave girl who is possessed by a demon that allows her to predict the future. y She hounds the apostle and publicly maligns him until, after a few days, he deals with the problem by exorcising the demon. But her owners are incensed because they were making a profit off her demon-inspired ability to tell fortunes. y They take the Christians up before the local magistrates to complain that the Christians were causing disturbances and proclaiming customs that were opposed to Roman ways. The magistrate has Paul stripped naked, beaten, and thrown in prison. ` This lecture isn’t saying that the event happened exactly as described. However, it is indicative of the kind of thing that almost certainly happened in general: Christians were seen as opposing pagan cultic practices and therefore as troublemakers, and they were treated accordingly. ` Something broadly similar occurs in Acts 19. y Paul comes to the city of Ephesus and stays some months, doing miracles and preaching.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  "I am persuaded," said Hircan, "that there is noth- ing more irritating to man or woman than to be unjustly suspected. For my own part, there is nothing would sooner make me break with my friends." " Yet it is not a reasonable excuse," said Oisille, " for a woman to say she revenges herself for her husband's suspicions at the cost of her own shame ; it is doing like a man who, not being able to kill his enemy, runs him- self through with his own sword, or bites his own fingers when he cannot scratch him. She would have acted Fifth day.\ QUEEN OF NA VARKE. 409 more wisely in never speaking to the friend, in order to show her husband that he was wrong in suspecting her, for time would have reconciled them." " She acted like a woman of spirit," said Ennasuite ; " and if there were many wives like her, their husbands would not be so outrageous." " After all," said Longarine, "patience finally enables a chaste woman to triumph, and by it she should abide." " A woman, however, may be sinless, and yet not chaste," observed Ennasuite. " How do you mean ? " asked Oisille. " When she mistakes another for her husband," re- plied Ennasuite. " And where is the fool," exclaimed Parlamente, "who does not know the difference between her husband and another man, disguise himse'lf as he may } " " There have been, and there will be," rejoined En- nasuite, " those who have made such a mistake in perfect good faith, and who consequently are not culpable." " If you know an instance of the kind, relate it to us," said Dagoucin ; " to me it seems that innocence and sin are two very incompatible things." " Well, ladies," said Ennasuite, " if the stories you have already heard have not sufficiently shown you that it is dangerous to lodge those who call us mundane, and look upon themselves as saints, and as persons much more regenerate than we are, here is a tale which will convince you not only that they are men like others, but that they have in them something diabolical exceed- ing the common wickedness of men." 4IO THE HEPTAMEKON OF THE \Novel i^ NOVEL XLVIII. A Cordelier took the hucband's place on his wedding-night, while the latter was dancing with the bridal party.

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 71 < Lecture 10  The Christian Mission to the Jews ` When most Jews rejected this message, it led to some very violent confrontations. Thus, Paul tried to destroy the church. After he converted, he himself was violently attacked, repeatedly, by Jews. According to Acts, so were other followers of Jesus. ` But Christians did start to have success among pagans. This included those converted during the missionary activities of Paul but also through the preaching of others like him. ` When pagans converted into the fold, they were taught the Jewish scriptures that predicted the coming of the messiah. These pagans, of course, had almost no way of knowing how Jews had long interpreted these passages, and so they had no reason to doubt they really were about Jesus. ` Once they were convinced, they, along with Jewish Christians, started appealing to the Jewish scriptures to support their faith in Jesus the messiah. Other Jews found these interpretations seriously offensive and rejected them. ` In turn, the followers of Jesus were offended by Jews who, in the Christian opinion, rejected their own messiah. This led to heightened tensions, which only grew worse over time. Reading Collins, The Scepter and the Star. Goodman, Mission and Conversion. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire . Questions ¸ Why did so many Jews not accept the Christian message about Jesus? Why did Christians find this rejection puzzling? < 72 < TABLE OF CONTENTS Lecture 11 Early ChristianitiesEarly Christianities T he differences we see in forms of Christianity today pale in comparison with the kind of diversity we find in the 2nd- and 3rd-century churches scattered around the empire. The early Christianities had wildly different beliefs, practices, and written authorities. Which Christianity? ` If Christianity wasn’t one thing but many things, how can we say Christianity triumphed? Did they all triumph? The traditional answer among historians is the one that probably most people still hold: It was “original” Christianity that triumphed. ` In this view, the huge diversity we find later in the 2nd and 3rd centuries represented splinter groups that had corrupted the “original truth” taught by Jesus and his followers. However, that view has come under fire. For one, just like today, every Christian group of the 2nd and 3rd Christian centuries claimed that its views were correct and the original views, and everyone else had wrong views that were perversions of the truth. ` It is worth noting that the diversity found in the 2nd century didn’t actually start then. We have hard evidence of extensive diversity from the earliest days of Christianity, in fact, already in our earliest written Christian records, the letters of Paul. ` In fact, many books of the New Testament refer to Christians who held views that other Christians through were flat-out heretical and demonic. But these others thought they were faithful to the message of Jesus.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Whether hatred of one’s neighbor is always a sin?Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of one’s neighbor is not always a sin. For no sin is commanded or counselled by God, according to Prov. 8:8: “All My words are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them.” Now, it is written (Lk. 14:26): “If any man come to Me, and hate not his father and mother . . . he cannot be My disciple.” Therefore hatred of one’s neighbor is not always a sin. Objection 2: Further, nothing wherein we imitate God can be a sin. But it is in imitation of God that we hate certain people: for it is written (Rom. 1:30): “Detractors, hateful to God.” Therefore it is possible to hate certain people without committing a sin. Objection 3: Further, nothing that is natural is a sin, for sin is a “wandering away from what is according to nature,” according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 4,30; iv, 20). Now it is natural to a thing to hate whatever is contrary to it, and to aim at its undoing. Therefore it seems that it is not a sin to hate one’s I enemy. On the contrary, It is written (1 Jn. 2:9): “He that . . . hateth his brother, is in darkness.” Now spiritual darkness is sin. Therefore there cannot be hatred of one’s neighbor without sin. I answer that, Hatred is opposed to love, as stated above ([2622]FS, Q[29], A[2]); so that hatred of a thing is evil according as the love of that thing is good. Now love is due to our neighbor in respect of what he holds from God, i.e. in respect of nature and grace, but not in respect of what he has of himself and from the devil, i.e. in respect of sin and lack of justice. Consequently it is lawful to hate the sin in one’s brother, and whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but we cannot hate our brother’s nature and grace without sin. Now it is part of our love for our brother that we hate the fault and the lack of good in him, since desire for another’s good is equivalent to hatred of his evil. Consequently the hatred of one’s brother, if we consider it simply, is always sinful. Reply to Objection 1: By the commandment of God (Ex. 20:12) we must honor our parents—as united to us in nature and kinship. But we must hate them in so far as they prove an obstacle to our attaining the perfection of Divine justice. Reply to Objection 2: God hates the sin which is in the detractor, not his nature: so that we can hate detractors without committing a sin.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to Objection 2: Both “sullen” and “ill-tempered” people have a long-lasting anger, but for different reasons. For a “sullen” person has an abiding anger on account of an abiding displeasure, which he holds locked in his breast; and as he does not break forth into the outward signs of anger, others cannot reason him out of it, nor does he of his own accord lay aside his anger, except his displeasure wear away with time and thus his anger cease. On the other hand, the anger of “ill-tempered” persons is long-lasting on account of their intense desire for revenge, so that it does not wear out with time, and can be quelled only by revenge. Reply to Objection 3: The degrees of anger mentioned by our Lord do not refer to the different species of anger, but correspond to the course of the human act [*Cf. [3577]FS, Q[46], A[8], OBJ[3]]. For the first degree is an inward conception, and in reference to this He says: “Whosoever is angry with his brother.” The second degree is when the anger is manifested by outward signs, even before it breaks out into effect; and in reference to this He says: “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca!” which is an angry exclamation. The third degree is when the sin conceived inwardly breaks out into effect. Now the effect of anger is another’s hurt under the aspect of revenge; and the least of hurts is that which is done by a mere word; wherefore in reference to this He says: “Whosoever shall say to his brother Thou fool!” Consequently it is clear that the second adds to the first, and the third to both the others; so that, if the first is a mortal sin, in the case referred to by our Lord, as stated above (A[3], ad 2), much more so are the others. Wherefore some kind of condemnation is assigned as corresponding to each one of them. In the first case “judgment” is assigned, and this is the least severe, for as Augustine says [*Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 9], “where judgment is to be delivered, there is an opportunity for defense”: in the second case “council” is assigned, “whereby the judges deliberate together on the punishment to be inflicted”: to the third case is assigned “hell-fire,” i.e. “decisive condemnation.” Whether anger should be reckoned among the capital vices?Objection 1: It would seem that anger should not be reckoned among the capital sins. For anger is born of sorrow which is a capital vice known by the name of sloth. Therefore anger should not be reckoned a capital vice. Objection 2: Further, hatred is a graver sin than anger. Therefore it should be reckoned a capital vice rather than anger.

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 114 < Lecture 17  Early Christian Apologists y They were thought to be morally reprobate, engaging in wild and illicit activities that threatened decent society. ` The charge of atheism seems especially odd today. Ancient pagans viewed matters differently. The pagan religions supported the worship of numerous gods. These gods resided in different places and had different functions. There were hundreds of gods, worshiped in innumerable ways. These gods made life possible and potentially even happy. ` Christians denied these gods. Some Christians said they didn’t exist at all. Others claimed the pagan gods were actually evil demons. The Christians were “without the gods.” That’s what the term atheist means. ` One might respond that Jews too were without the gods. But Jews were always treated as the great exception to the need to worship the gods because they had such ancient traditions. Their religious practices had been around for many centuries, long before Rome itself came on the scene, so they were essentially grandfathered in. < 114 < < 115 < Lecture 17  Early Christian Apologists ` Christians were seen as a different story. They were almost entirely former pagans who had given up their ancestral religions for one that had just appeared. ` Why would pagans care if a strange-seeming religious group was in their midst? There were many other groups, but all of them involved pagan divinities, and none of them forbade their followers from worshiping all the gods they wanted. Only the Christians did that. ` Thus, pagans sometimes considered Christians to be a problem. Any community that housed them could also be in for some dire problems. Writings ` The writings of Tertullian reveal much about pagans’ views. Tertullian was a prolific Christian writer from around 200 CE. In his book called The Apology, he summarizes the problem pagans had with the Christians, claiming that any disaster that ever happens is because the gods are punishing people for allowing Christians in their midst. ` Tertullian was not the first highly educated Christian to write defenses of the Christian view in light of these kinds of attacks. The first surviving apology comes to us from a Christian intellectual named Justin from Rome in 150 CE, more commonly called Justin Martyr. ` Some 30 years later came an apology by Athenagoras of Athens. After another stretch, Origen of Alexandria produced one, and there were a number of other authors in between. Defenses ` These apologists and others like them were both distressed and incensed that they were being called atheists. Their view is one that will resonate with many people today. y They insisted that Christians alone were the only people who were not atheists. They believed in the one true God—the God who created the world. The other gods simply didn’t exist or were demonic forces.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Sixthly, as far as they are able, they try to deprive religious of alms, and of all other means of subsistence. “And as if these things were not enough for him,” writes St. John, “neither does he himself receive the brethren; and those who receive them he forbids (3 Jn). The Gloss thus comments on, these words, “And, as if these things were not enough for him,” i.e., as if it did not suffice him to dissuade others from exercising hospitality, “neither does he himself receive the brethren,” ie. the indigent, “and those who receive them he forbids,” i.e., he forbids them to give assistance to those in want. Seventhly, the ministers of Satan endeavour to tarnish the reputation of the Saints; and that, not only by word, but by letters, sent to all parts of the world. “From the prophets of Jerusalem, corruption is gone forth into all the land” (Jer. xxiii. 13). St. Jerome, expounding this text, says, “These words are our testimony against those who send forth into the world letters full of lies and deceit and perjury, wherewith to pollute the ears of those who hear them.” For it is not enough for the servants of the devil to nourish themselves with their own malice, or to injure those at hand, but they must strive to defame their enemies, and spread their blasphemies against them over the entire globe. In our attempt to cheek the calumnies of these foul tongues, we shall proceed in the following order. First, as their malice seems entirely directed against religious, we shall show what the religious life is, and wherein its perfection consists (ch. 1). Secondly, we shall demonstrate the worthlessness and folly of the reasons which their enemies adduce against the religious (chs. 2-7). Thirdly, we shall point out that the accusations brought against religious are calumnious (chs 8-28). PART 1

• From Another Country (1962)

  He came and stood over her. “Let’s get this straight. We’ve been married almost thirteen years, and I’ve been in love with you all that time, and I’ve trusted you, and, except for a couple of times in the army, I haven’t had anything to do with any other woman. Even though I’ve thought about it. But it never seemed worth it. And I’ve worked, I’ve worked very hard, Cass, for you and our children, so we could be happy and so our marriage would work. Maybe you think that’s old-fashioned, maybe you think I’m dumb, I don’t know, you’re so much more—sensitive than I am. And now—and then—” He walked over to the bar and set his glass down. “Suddenly, for no reason, just when it begins to seem that things are really going to work out for us, all of a sudden—you begin to make me feel that I’m something that stinks, that I ought to be out of doors. I didn’t know what had happened, I didn’t know where you’d gone—all of a sudden. I’ve listened to you come into this house and go and look at the boys, and then crawl into bed—I swear, I could hear every move you made—and I’d stay on in the office like a little boy, because I didn’t know how, how, to come close to you again. I kept thinking, She’ll get over it, it’s just some strange kind of feminine shift that I can’t understand. I even thought, my God, that maybe you were going to have another baby and didn’t want to tell me yet.” He bowed his head on the bar. “And, Jesus, Jesus—Eric! You walk in and tell me you’ve been sleeping with Eric.” He turned and looked at her. “How long?” “A few weeks.” “Why?” She did not answer. He came toward her again. “Answer me, baby. Why?” He leaned over her, imprisoning her in the chair. “Is it that you wanted to hurt me?” “No. I have never wanted to hurt you.” “Why, then?” He leaned closer. “Did you get bored with me? Does he make love to you better than I; does he know tricks I don’t know? Is that it?” He wrapped the fingers of one hand in her hair. “Is that it? Answer me!” “Richard, you’re going to wake the children—” “Now she worries about the children!” He pulled her head forward, then slammed it back against the chair, and slapped her across the face, twice, as hard as he could. The room dropped into darkness for a second, then came reeling back, in light; tears came to her eyes, and her nose began to bleed. “Is that it? Did he fuck you in the ass, did he make you suck his cock? Answer me, you bitch, you slut, you cunt!” She tried to throw back her head, choking and gasping, she felt her thick blood on her lips, and it fell onto her breasts. “No, Richard, no, no. Please, Richard.”

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  There was at Grenoble a president whose name I shall not mention. It is enough to say that he was not a Frenchman, that he had a very handsome wife, and that they lived very happily together. The husband, however, being old, the lady thought fit to love a young clerk named Nicolas. When the husband went in the morning to the Palace of Justice, the clerk used to step into the bedchamber and take his place. An old do- mestic of the president's, who had been in his service for thirty years, discovered this, and as a faithful ser- vant, could not help revealing it to his master. The president, who was a prudent man, would not believe the fact without inquiry, and told the servant that he wanted to create dissension between him and his wife ; adding, that if the fact was as he stated, he could easily give him ocular proof of it, and if he failed to do so, then he, the president, would believe that the servant had trumped up his lying tale to make mischief between husband and wife. The valet assured him that he should see what he had told him. One morning, when the president had gone to tlie palace, and the clerk had stolen into the bedroom as Fourth day :\ QUEEN OF NAVARRE. 325 usual, the valet sent one of his fellow-servants to apprise the president, while he himself remained on the watch before the bedroom door, to see if Nicolas came out. The president, on seeing the messenger beckon to hin::, immediately quitted the court on pretence of sudden illness, and hurried home, where he found his old servant standing sentry at the bedroom door, and was assured by him that Nicolas was inside, having gone in not long before. "Remain at the door," said the president. " There is no other way to get in or out of the room, as thou knowest, except a little closet, of which I always keep the key." The president enters the room, and finds his wife and the clerk in bed together. Nicolas, who did not expect such a visit, threw himself in his shirt at his master's feet, and implored pardon, whilst the lady fell a crying. " Though what you have done," said the president to her, " is as bad as it can be, I do not choose to have the credit of my house blasted for you, and the daughters I have had by you made the sufferers. I command you, then, to cease your crying, and see what I am going to do. As for you, Nicolas," said he to the clerk, " hide yourself in my cabinet, and make no noise."

• From Blue Like Jazz (2003)

  For so much of my life I had been defending Christianity because I thought to admit that we had done any wrong was to discredit the religious system as a whole, but it isn’t a religious system, it is people following Christ; and the important thing to do, the right thing to do, was to apologize for getting in the way of Jesus. Later I had a conversation with a very arrogant Reed professor in the parking lot in which he asked me what brought me to Reed. I told him I was auditing a class but was really there to interact with the few Christians who studied at Reed. The professor asked me if I was a Christian evangelist. I told him I didn’t think I was, that I wouldn’t consider myself an evangelist. He went on to compare my work to that of Captain Cook, who had attempted to bring Western values to indigenous people of Hawaii. He looked me in the eye and said the tribes had killed Cook. He did not wish me a greater fate at Reed. All the way home on my motorcycle I fumed and imagined beating the professor into a pulp right there in the parking lot. I could see his sly smile, his intellectual pride. Sure, Christians had done terrible things to humanity, but I hadn’t. I had never killed anybody at all. And those people weren’t following Jesus when they committed those crimes against humanity. They were government people, and government always uses God to manipulate the masses into following them. Both Clinton and Bush claim to be followers of Jesus. Anybody who wants to get their way says that Jesus supports their view. But that isn’t Jesus’ fault. Tony had come to campus a few days earlier, a bit sad in the face. He had seen a bumper sticker on one of the cars in the parking lot that read “Too bad we can’t feed Christians to the lions anymore.”