Christopher Columbus - how can Catholics admire him and name organisations after him?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
this is the way things were back in the 15th century

the Holy Spirit operates through means we don’t understand

North America became Christian

it’s not really like the natives were treating each other very nicely
 
You’re missing the point. The articles don’t make something true. True things get a lot of articles written about them. At least in this case.
 
I know the point OP is attempting to make. I would just prefer their point to be accurate and not end in a fallacy that kills the point.

OPis staying a claim. It is up to her to back that claim up with accurate data. So far, the “best” answers have been fallacious.

I am a historian with a degree in history education. I know where I stand on the issue, and should I feel the need to refute or agree with OP’s statement I can cite accurate sources. I ask for the same in return.
 
ajg said:
That is a fallacious statement. There are zero articles about how I never participated in genocide, yet I have not done so.
Click to expand...
But had you been one of the most famous people in the western world, and there was such an absence of material, but the existence of many, many scholarly articles saying the opposite, there would be reason to think the opposite might be true.
 
columbus was not a creep; he was a skilled navigator who accomplished something akin to the USA’s landing on the moon

amongst his crew were kind & faithful priests who attempted (against all odds) to evangelize the natives

yes, there were not so nice sailors amongst columbus’ crew who abused the natives

the natives , by & large, got their revenge

i’d’d just have to have have had hoped that the whole schemata has had worked out according to plan of the Holy Spirit
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Can we not hold people in the past accountable for failure to love their neighbours and not treating them as they would wish themselves to be treated?
Click to expand...
What’s the point of doing so? Those people are dead. And Columbus is not and will never be up for sainthood. There are no St. Christopher Columbus parishes. There are no statues of him in church with candles lit before them.

I would rather the Church focus on what we should be doing now, today, to follow Christ’s teachings, rather than sitting around evaluating historical figures who are not clergy or up for sainthood. Leave that to the historians.
 
not sure why you are blaming 15th century mindsets on columbus, who opened up north america to christianity

what was going on amongst the native populations & tribes before columbus got here?

kindness, peace, tranquility?

i think not

the natives were at each other’s throats
 
I don’t know why you’re blaming 15th century mindsets on the Natives. See what your argument does?

Europe was in a meat constant state of war since the Pax Romana. They were at each other’s throats too. They just had the wherefore all to sail over the sea and brutalize, enslave, and rape children.

You said Columbus wasn’t a creep. Rape is what creeps do in any century.
 
columbus most likely didn’t rape anybody. he navigated 3 ships into unknown waters; and against all odds and by the grace of God “discovered” a new continent

he brought along some priests and/or monks whose intentions i am going to have to have had assumed were good

yes columbus’ crew were largely dirty, ignorant sailors whose intentions , after columbus left to resupply, were probably largely bad

they knew nothing about the microbes they were spreading to the natives
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I don’t see the city of Columbus, Ohio changing its name or people moving out of it because they’ve decided Columbus was a creep.
Click to expand...
Or the District of Columbia. Or the Canadian province of British Columbia. Or Colombia, a country in South America.
 
FiveLinden said:
I have started this thread because my attempt to discuss it in another thread about membership of the KoC was unwelcome. My specific allegation was that Columbus was responsible for genocide caused only in part by ideas but also by his acts of war, enslavement, oppression, murder and execution of indigenous people. I accept that the elimination of an entire people was not his aim but it was certainly the consequence of his actions. Now I accept that he was a person of his time. But I understand Catholic teaching to that Jesus Christ and his Church on matters of faith and morals are ‘the same yesterday, today and tomorrow’. In the modern world Columbus would have been prosecuted and convicted. If the trial was at Nuremberg, before mercian judges, in 1946, he would have been executed…
Click to expand...
Which is no longer promoted by the Church or much of the world.

So even that example shows the way expectations have changed over a time span of less than 100 years.
 
Last edited:
Hi FiveLinden. Very good questions.
I accept that the elimination of an entire people was not his aim but it was certainly the consequence of his actions. Now I accept that he was a person of his time. But I understand Catholic teaching to that Jesus Christ and his Church on matters of faith and morals are ‘the same yesterday, today and tomorrow’.
Click to expand...
The Church can’t dogmatically teach falsehoods (for example, Vatican II could never have rescinded its teaching on the two natures of Christ, just as an example). As an actual mass of people consisting of millions at the time, Catholics are human beings and they are just as much susceptible to national loyalty, prejudice, cultural norms, etc., as any other individuals.

And there are plenty of people under the broad tent of “Catholic” who might otherwise be gangsters, villains, etc. To be clear, I am of the view that Columbus’ story [and the story of the 15th century world in general] is exceedingly more complicated than a binary worldview.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Is it? Where do you get ‘on purpose’?
Click to expand...
You should read the UN Convention on genocide. To use your words “on purpose” is required and intent is hard to prove. Here is an extract:

“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, what makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.”
 
Considering it was 500 years ago, nope. I’m not much on virtue signaling just to satisfy people’s sensibilities.
 
guanophore said:
Americans should be taught about how the European conquest of the continent slaughtered the inhabitants.
Click to expand...
Can we also teach them about what life was like for the natives before Europeans got there? The human sacrifice, the sexual enslavement of conquered tribes women, the murder of the children of a conquered tribe, etc?
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
40.png
guanophore:
Americans should be taught about how the European conquest of the continent slaughtered the inhabitants.
Click to expand...
Can we also teach them about what life was like for the natives before Europeans got there? The human sacrifice, the sexual enslavement of conquered tribes women, the murder of the children of a conquered tribe, etc?
Click to expand...
That does not justify the colonists’ behavior. Can we all just chalk it up to original sin, and stop the debate? Spain was not exactly a Christian nation; with the Reconquista, there were Muslim influences on their society. Similarly, violence associated with religious difference was endemic in England.

The conquest of Mexico would have been impossible without the help of the tribes who were fed up with the Aztec powerhouse eating up their people in human sacrifice. This is one reason why Catholicism spread so quickly among the Natives (and Guadalupe).
 
Two answers- one is that Columbus is honored for his accomplishment of discovering the new world- no one ever said he did it without committing sin.

And the second is that its the mythology and accomplishments of Columbus- not necessarily the flesh and blood version, the fallible man that walked the earth 500 years ago.- that is being honored in the names of the K of C, Republic of Columbia, Columbus, O, etc.

Martin Luther King was hardly perfect, looking back at the man who died in 1968. But his heroic image is something else, and that’s what we honor on the day dedicated to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top