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.
I note that it’s not all that simple, legally, and not that desirable, from an organizational history perspective, to just “change the name” of an organization that has been going for a very long time. (There are rebranding concerns and a lot of intellectual property concerns.) Otherwise, the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would likely be called something else, because “negro” and “colored people” have not been considered polite terms in the US for many years.

As of now we have very few American male (this is a men’s organization and it needs to be a male) saints. Of those available, John Neumann would probably be the best selection; however, one big issue is that John Neumann was a bishop, and this is a lay association, so they most likely would want to name it after a layman. I don’t believe we have, as yet, any male American saints, or even beati (that’s one step down from saint), who were not priests or members of religious orders. Perhaps in the future we will have one.

I further note that at the time this organization was founded, the only male American saints around that time (who were not fully canonized until a few decades after this organization got started) were several martyrs who were gruesomely killed by Native Americans. So if one of them were picked, such as St. Isaac Jogues who had part of his hand chewed off, was tortured with hot coals, starved, and finally killed with an axe, this would really not be an “improvement” over Columbus for what you are trying to do.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
‘Venerate’ in the sense I am using it means ‘show great respect to’. Naming your organisation for someone shows great respect for them.
Click to expand...
Your distorted vocabulary aside, I still do not see any genocidal historic people being venerated.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
‘Venerate’ in the sense I am using it means ‘show great respect to’. Naming your organisation for someone shows great respect for them.
Click to expand...
“Venerate” is a word that in the Catholic faith has a very specific meaning, which has been pointed out.

For you to say, “well I mean something else” does not change the specific meaning ascribed by the Church. We do not venerate anybody who isn’t a saint, angel or the Blessed Mother, period. It is not allowed. For you to use the word is suggesting we are doing something that actually goes against Church teaching.

Please use another word. These distinctions are important as we are trying to give correct information about the Catholic faith here, not propagate misinformation so that a whole bunch of non-Catholics will think we “venerate” random Catholic men in society.
 
FiveLinden said:
40.png
Kathleen18:
To which group of people are you refering as being wiped out by Christopher Columbus?

The Taino? The Arawak? The Carib? (These are the groups of indigenous peoples that Christopher Columbus met.)

I suggest you do a little bit more research. Because you see my friend those groups have not died out. They intermarried with Spanish and African Slaves. Their descendants live on, to this day. Furthermore it was disease that nearly wiped them out
Click to expand...
I am quite sure you are right. But ‘genocide’ does not require complete elimination of a people. That is why the holocaust is described as a genocide despite the continued existence of Jews. Holocaust deniers like David Irving make this argument all the time.
Click to expand...
But what genocide requires is at least the INTENT of eliminating a group of people. There is zero evidence that Columbus had even that.
 
Brendan said:
But what genocide requires is at least the INTENT of eliminating a group of people. There is zero evidence that Columbus had even that.
Click to expand...
He may not have predicted or expected the complete elimination of the people but he appeared to have no concern as it happened and took actions such as waging war, mass enslavement, murder and brutal oppression which any rational person would have considered could contribute to the elimination of a people. And even if genocide was not his intent his contributing actions were intended and as far as I can work out, in Catholic terms, are objectively sinful and give great scandal.
 
vz71 said:
I do not believe Christopher Columbus was the villain you portray him to be.
Click to expand...
You may choose whatever beliefs you want. I do not choose my conclusions. I draw them from facts.
 
FiveLinden, I’d be a lot more interested in all of your “arguments” or discussion or whatever, if it didn’t appear that you were doing everything possible to try to stick it to the Church in some misguided belief that because a fraternal insurance organization was named after Columbus around the turn of the nineteenth century, if we don’t now change the name of this long-running organization that has just about nothing to do with Columbus in this day and age and everything to do with service projects and social gatherings in the US Catholic Church, the Church are somehow approving the mass murder of indigenous peoples.

That seems to be your entire agenda for posting through two threads. You remind me of those people who march around on campuses demanding that buildings named after somebody from 150 years ago be renamed because the person’s views were characteristic of 150 years ago and not just like how we think today.

If you actually wanted to look at what the Church constantly teaches these days about human dignity, you would be getting a true impression of the Church. Instead you are hung up on a name, which like I said, seems more like playing “gotcha” than trying to do anything productive. That’s my take, and I’m out.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
If you actually wanted to look at what the Church constantly teaches these days about human dignity, you would be getting a true impression of the Church. Instead you are hung up on a name, which like I said, seems more like playing “gotcha” than trying to do anything productive. That’s my take, and I’m out.
Click to expand...
I have not been arguing for a change of name. I have been asking for an explanation of the apparent contradiction between the name and Catholic teaching. I am still intrigued by the emotion this produces.
 
Sure, it happens. That doesn’t make it not evil, and especially doesn’t make it something Christians should accept or ignore.

Europeans during the Age of Exploration weren’t uniquely awful compared to other groups in history or even to some of those they conquered. But being “only as awful as most other folks” doesn’t make their awful actions not-awful.

We have (as did they) the example and teaching of Jesus as our standard, not just “the way things have always been.”
 
Christianity flourished after Constantine slaughtered an enemy army at Milvian Bridge and beheaded his enemy.

Sometimes violence is necessary to create situations for goodness to flourish.
 
The origin of the name has been explained (famous Catholic who, at the time, was regarded as a hero by the average American, even an average American who mistrusted the Catholic immigrants of his day). Public opinion on Mr. Columbus has changed since then, as knowledge of his nastier deeds has become more widespread and sensitivity to the pain of minority populations has increased among the majority of Americans.

The Church has indeed always taught that the evil acts of Columbus and his successors were evil (though you can undoubtedly find church officials in the ranks of those who excused particular actions because they didn’t care for the victims). We say that the teaching has not changed, not that we haven’t gotten better over time at applying and following it.
 
I’m not saying it is. I don’t view violence as inherently evil though, it’s more neutral. It’s a tool that can be wielded either justly or unjustly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top