C
childofmary1143
Guest
Nobody has mentioned the word Rome and why you are starting it is incorrect. The Pope being graced FAR MORE than you is in a better position to determine what needs to be said than you.
- Status
B
bones_IV
Guest
I sense a lot of hostility coming from you. If you don’t like what the Benedict XVI says or what the Church teaches than get of this site!
S
seekerz
Guest
Sorry but I’m a little confused, what exactly did the Pope say?
The original post mentions purification, but when I read the link it reports he said the Church did not impose herself upon the Indians?
Do we have a direct quote?
The original post mentions purification, but when I read the link it reports he said the Church did not impose herself upon the Indians?
Do we have a direct quote?
I
I_Believe
Guest
See post 9, on page 1 of this thread. I think that is what Chavez is whining about.
M
M-Dent
Guest
Unfortunatley, even though Hugo Chavez may suffer from some form of mental illness he is a leader of a nation.
J
JW10631
Guest
Chavez is a Castro wannabe with oil reserves and money. The man is an enemy of the Catholic Church and he is dangerous.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
People like Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong-il(N. Korea), Nguyễn Minh Triết (Vietnam)and Hu Jintao(China) are so infatuated with power that they would not know truth if it slapped them in the face.
B
bones_IV
Guest
Pray for them.
B
BlestOne
Guest
I agree!!! I think it is great to hear the pope speak his mind!!! We need a reality check at times. I fully support his stance on this one!
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Exactly. Secular Relativist cannot stand the real truth. That is why the revise history to meet their agenda.
I
ironchef
Guest
hi fellow catholics. Chavez is right. the vatican had murdered untold thousands of indians. its time we owned up to the legacy of our church. we didnt purify anyone down there. the Church did its best to exterminate them and work them to death in the gold mines. we like to forget the golden inquisition days of murder and torture in the name of the Pope. sorry guys
E
estesbob
Guest
And your evidence of this is?
I
Ilroy
Guest
I’m pretty sure the statement was a bit of sarcasm…?
E
estesbob
Guest
Haivng read his other posts I doubt it.
S
seekerz
Guest
I am yet to get a hold of the Pope’s exact words but I do know this: while the coming of Christianity (with colonialisation) to the New World was a blessing, history does show that European nations (Spain, Portugal) enslaved the native people. One Spanish priest, Las Casas, became known as a defender of the Indians. Eventually Indian slavery was replaced by African slavery, something Las Casas initially supported though he later realised his error.
While I would say that the grace of conversion outweighs the sorrows that accompanied it, I can understand why this is often a sore topic for people of that region. Indeed, many totally ignored the ‘celebrations’ some years ago surrounding the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the New World. That was partly because they felt that the use of the word ‘discovery’ reflects a European point of view (after all the Americas had been inhabited for centuries, they’d just never 'discovered Europe) and partly because of the suffering that that ‘discovery’ resulted in.
Just some perspective. Of course, Chavez is a loose cannon, but that’s another story…
While I would say that the grace of conversion outweighs the sorrows that accompanied it, I can understand why this is often a sore topic for people of that region. Indeed, many totally ignored the ‘celebrations’ some years ago surrounding the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the New World. That was partly because they felt that the use of the word ‘discovery’ reflects a European point of view (after all the Americas had been inhabited for centuries, they’d just never 'discovered Europe) and partly because of the suffering that that ‘discovery’ resulted in.
Just some perspective. Of course, Chavez is a loose cannon, but that’s another story…
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Probably Bottener
C
cmcgrath22
Guest
Now my history of the region is just a little bit fuzzy. Did the Vatican send over to Latin America her mighty fleet and Army? Or was that Spain? History is full of examples of Seculer powers justifying their actions with religion. Righteous action does not require justification. The Church is not responsible for and should certainly never apologize for the actions of others.
C
Cactus
Guest
Of course the Church brought the means for the Indians’ purification. Baptism and the other Sacraments do just that. It seems Chavez and his type think the Indians would be better off as pagans.
S
seekerz
Guest
We have to understand that Chavez is just pushing what is for many people of the region an emotional button.
Many love the Church but abhor the very memory of colonialisation; since the two came at the same time and with the same people, they are understandably sensitive and we would do well to tread carefully when referring to that period of history.
It’s much more difficult to separate the actions of secular from religious authorities in that time period; even if the Spanish invaders were the ones who committed atrocities, many were professed Catholics and it took certain missionaries like Las Casas to make the Church’s disapproval of wrong actions clearly known.
It is reported that even Las Casas owned African slaves. I think we would do well to just leave the issue alone and simply thank God for making himself known to these people despite all they endured.
The words purification or purging (don’t know if and when they were used at all by the Pope) could be misconstrued by some to indicate that the excesses of colonialism were somehow justified or necessary.
Chavez gets too much attention already - what he doesn’t need now is a ‘valid’ grouse to drive a wedge between South/Central Americans and the Church.
Many love the Church but abhor the very memory of colonialisation; since the two came at the same time and with the same people, they are understandably sensitive and we would do well to tread carefully when referring to that period of history.
It’s much more difficult to separate the actions of secular from religious authorities in that time period; even if the Spanish invaders were the ones who committed atrocities, many were professed Catholics and it took certain missionaries like Las Casas to make the Church’s disapproval of wrong actions clearly known.
It is reported that even Las Casas owned African slaves. I think we would do well to just leave the issue alone and simply thank God for making himself known to these people despite all they endured.
The words purification or purging (don’t know if and when they were used at all by the Pope) could be misconstrued by some to indicate that the excesses of colonialism were somehow justified or necessary.
Chavez gets too much attention already - what he doesn’t need now is a ‘valid’ grouse to drive a wedge between South/Central Americans and the Church.
H
Hamilcar
Guest
OK, a little history lesson for those of you who are a little foggy. And this comes from a Latin American with Indian blood running in his veins.
Rodrigo
- Indian slavery was against Spanish law and did not occur anywhere on the mainland although it was instituted on the islands briefly by the Columbus family until Queen Isabel put a stop to it. Indian slavery was, however, legal under Portuguese law and so existed in the Portuguese colonies (Brazil).
- It was Silver mines, not Gold mines.
- Las Casas is a controversial figure. All reputable historian now agree that he GROSSLY exaggerated his accounts and figures and that his writing were expanded on by Protestant propangandist in the Netherlands, England and France.
- Genocide did take place in the Americas. There is much blame to be laid at the feet of European colonists (England, France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, etc.), but the cause of 90% or more of the deaths were due to Old World diseases to which the native populations had no resistance. Although controversial, many believe that Siphylis was an American disease that was brought back to Europe. It wreaked havoc there in the 16th C.
- The Indians were NOT peaceful folk. The Incas and Aztecs were agressive, imperialistic peoples who conquered many other tribes and in some cases enslaved them. The Aztecs in particular were much hated. The 500+ Spaniards unter Cortes could never have conquered them without the aid of thousands of Indian warriors from other tribes (e.g. the Tlaxcalans).
- Although some of the secular clergy in America were corrupt, the regular clergy did all it could to protect the Indians from the worse abuses of the European colonists. The Spanish crown instituted laws to protect the Indians and attempted to segregate them from the Europeans. The Indians were to keep their languages, their custom and their leaders. Spanish law would not apply to them. They were, however, required to give up their ancestoral religions and convert to Christianity. It wasn’t until Independence that the Indians were forced to conform to the laws, language and customs once applicable only to the European segment of the population.
Rodrigo
- Status