He decided to be a martyr for his God. I think he punishes himself in hope to atone for his sins.
I agree it was stupid, but he was very religious and especially being a man from that era and a priest at that, there was no reasoning with him.
Roger tried but failed in the end.
I don't think he was stupid, a lot of martyrs died especially during the persecution where they were burned alive or eaten by lions. It is admirable because few people would sacrifice themselves, much less be tortured to death for something they believed in. You should watch A Man for All Seasons, unfortunately it might go over the heads of millenials or younger.
shareWell if God is as merciful as they claim , they wouldnt want them to die needlessly.
shareThat's not what they mean. And in Christian theology, what matters is your soul and that you die in grace which is considered immortal. His mercy also grants people freedom to choose their path, these Christians martyrs chose to die for their faith, for their grace, and to save their immortal souls. And if you can't see the strength to withstand torture, we'll that's unfortunate because that's a difficult thing to accomplish especially in today's fickle, shallow, and material obsessed world. You don't have to believe what they believe in but you can respect and empathize with the incredible strength and faith they have that none of us here can ever come close to emulating.
sharewell theres a difference here, he choose to die for his "sin" by refusing to baptize his son, therefore hes not a martyr. Its not like they wanna to kill him if he doesnt renounce his faith or something.
shareYes he did but he also couldn't go against his conscience, his faith, and pretend. That's not that different.
sharewhatever it is, he is punishing himself for no reason so its different than being a martyr.
shareI guess you don’t understand that he believes he is unable to perform baptism because of his lack of reconciliation with God. He is not punishing himself....he is refusing to perform an act he believes his religion commands him to refuse. Performing the baptism anyway would, in his eyes, be an act tantamount to renouncing his faith.
But you would be correct, if you were implying that the catechism does not require the performer of the sacrament to be in a perfect state of grace.
yeah , but why couldnt he go with the "fake baptism" idea?
he said he couldnt because "I'd know" , but so what? he hasnt performed an illegal baptism so god should be happy with that , the indians will be happy , and the baby will be unbaptised - same as it would be in the other scenarios.