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

[Usagi]

I agree with you on that, but there was a lot of wielding it unjustly in the European conquest of the Americas, and you seemed to be excusing that through a combination of “everyone was doing it” and “some good things came out of it.”

Heck, just look at the people (both Native American and even some Europeans who have embraced neo-pagan religions) who now outright reject Christianity because they see it as part of the whole evil package of conquest and subjugation. The actions of our ancestors have made it harder to spread the Gospel in some ways. “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles” because of evils perpetrated in that Name.

Just because Christianity was successfully spread by war and conquest doesn’t mean that’s the way it was supposed to be spread.

 

[Wolfie]

Didn’t the Ten Commandments exist for a long time prior to Columbus? Should we judge him on the standards of society at that time (which may have condoned stealing, killing, and rape), or the standards of Catholicism?

 

[vsedriver]

Did you read the letters in the link I provided? He admitted to raping native girls. And he was appointed governor of Hispanola. Where he oversaw the atrocities carried out on the Natives.

it would be better if you had a link to the actual letters of Columbus and not just excerpts. The reference to the rape wasn’t committed by Columbus but by one of his men.

 

[Brendan]

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

All of that was already happening in Mexico. The Aztec were substantially more brutal than anything the Spaniards did in all of those regards. A reasonable person could conclude that it was an effort to STOP genocide and introduce Christianity, which would be a vast improvement over what was already happening in Mexico.

 

[FiveLinden]

All of that was already happening in Mexico. The Aztec were substantially more brutal than anything the Spaniards did in all of those regards. A reasonable person could conclude that it was an effort to STOP genocide and introduce Christianity, which would be a vast improvement over what was already happening in Mexico.

I thought it was a foundational principle of Catholic teaching that you cannot do evil in order to produce a good outcome. Isn’t that why Catholics oppose abortion, euthanasia and unjust war?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I’d chalk that up more to cultural neo-marxism that seeks to demonize the foundation stones of western civilization so that the revolutionaries can more easily manipulate the narrative to support their pet causes. By destroying the foundation (Christianity, classical philosophy where there are known truths, etc.) and creating the intersectional ideology where everything is relative to ones perspective, there is no longer any truth or accepted right and wrong. This makes it easier to push homosexuality, transgenderism, historical revisionism, etc. onto people.

I think it’s better to stand on the shoulders of the men and women that built civilization rather than demonize them for their methods when the results were clearly worthy being achieved.

 

[Brendan]

I thought it was a foundational principle of Catholic teaching that you cannot do evil in order to produce a good outcome. Isn’t that why Catholics oppose abortion, euthanasia and unjust war?

We don’t, but neither do we expect humans to be perfect. I admire the Allied Army in WW-II. I don’t deny that certain members committed atrocities at times, and those specific acts should be condemned. But that does not stop me from admiring their determination to stop the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Do I admire Churchill and Ike for what they did, despite acts such as the fire bombing of Dresden, yes, I do!

Likewise, I do not admire everything that Columbus did, but I certainly admire the Spaniards desire to stop to cruelty of the Aztecs.

 

[FiveLinden]

Likewise, I do not admire everything that Columbus did, but I certainly admire the Spaniards desire to stop to cruelty of the Aztecs.

The question is not whether he is to be utterly condemned and admired for nothing. That is a straw man. The question is whether an organisation of the Catholic faithful can justify naming themselves after such a man and if so, how is this justification expressed in terms of Catholic belief.

 

[vsedriver]

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

I’m sure that now you know the origins for the use of Columbus’ name at the founding of the KofC you have a better understanding of how it fits with Catholic teaching.

 

[FiveLinden]

I’m sure that now you know the origins for the use of Columbus’ name at the founding of the KofC you have a better understanding of how it fits with Catholic teaching.

I have been told it was chosen for PR reasons because he was a Catholic and admired by non-Catholic Americans. I have not been told, from a perspective of Catholic teaching, why continuing such naming is justifiable. Have the Knights themselves considered the issue? What did they say? Are they empowered by a bishop to use the name ‘Catholic’? Did the bishop consider this issue?

 

[vsedriver]

I have not been told, from a perspective of Catholic teaching, why continuing such naming is justifiable.

it is justified because the name goes hand in hand with the good that the group has done over the decades. The KofC are not associated today with Columbus the way they were at their founding. Today they are associated with the good activity they do. There’s no need to change the name as they have given it new meaning.

 

[Brendan]

Catholic faithful can justify naming themselves after such a man and if so, how is this justification expressed in terms of Catholic belief.

For bringing the Catholic faith to the New World. I am sure that we can all agree that it is well worth admiration, and even naming service groups after him

And as for justifiying naming themselves after him, would that not be up to the bishops to decide. If they have any objection, I am sure that they would articulate the objections to such a group.

And if an individual bishop had objections, he would be well within his right to ban such a group. But it would be his decision, and his decision alone. Would it not?

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[joeybaggz]

I can’t believe this thread has gone on as long as it has.
Suggestion for a new thread is maybe,

1. Renaming the Washington Redskins
2. Rethinking John F. Kennedy in light of his rather unsavory amorous nature
3. Demolishing Abraham Lincoln because of his attitude toward people of African descent
4. O.J. didn’t do it.
5. Verbally stoning Notre Dame University for its portrayal of the Irish People
   6 Revoking the citizenship of any Cleveland resident who roots for the home professional baseball team.
   I’m sure there are many many more. Let’s totally rewrite history to justify the prejudicial notions of those who hate the USA and the RCC…

 

[FiveLinden]

Renaming the Washington Redskins
Rethinking John F. Kennedy in light of his rather unsavory amorous nature
Demolishing Abraham Lincoln because of his attitude toward people of African descent
O.J. didn’t do it.
Verbally stoning Notre Dame University for its portrayal of the Irish People

6 Revoking the citizenship of any Cleveland resident who roots for the home professional baseball team.

I’m sure there are many many more. Let’s totally rewrite history to justify the prejudicial notions of those who hate the USA and the RCC…

None of these are links to any organisation of standing in the Catholic Church. In fact I can’t immediately think of a similar Catholic example.

 

[joeybaggz]

None of these are links to any organisation of standing in the Catholic Church. In fact I can’t immediately think of a similar Catholic example.

Notre Dame isn’t an institution of standing in the Catholic Church?? What color is the sky in that world of yours?

 

[Kathleen18]

J.F.K. was a ROMAN CATHOLIC
Notre Dame is a ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.

 

[FiveLinden]

Notre Dame is named for the Blessed Virgin Mary. There would be issues I think if a Catholic organisation name itself for JFK; mostly because of his willingness to use nuclear weapons. Was this thread is about is the naming of a Catholic organisation for someone who acted in ways contrary to faith, and dramatically so. However, I can see I am upsetting people so from now on will respond only to new points. Thank you all for discussing this with me.

 

[Usagi]

No one is naming (or, most likely, would name) a Catholic organization after Columbus today. When the KofC were created, Columbus’ sins were not as widely known. Yes, he had already committed them, and the information was out there and probably known to historians, but he wasn’t the generally infamous figure he is today. I think that context is important, because the KofC were at no point knowingly holding up Columbus for his more atrocious acts, but only as the Catholic who “discovered America” (and therefore, by implication, gave Catholic immigrants a claim to be “real Americans” as much as their Protestant countrymen.

Now, Columbus is better understood as an evil influence, but as others have pointed out the Knights have made their own name for good deeds and are no longer especially tied to their namesake, any more than the various places named for him are. And you did say you weren’t interested in their changing the name.

The consistency of Catholic moral teaching is unaffected, because Columbus’ sins were always wrong and condemned by that teaching (if, perhaps, not always by the Catholic officials surrounding him).

 

[Brendan]

Are they empowered by a bishop to use the name ‘Catholic’? Did the bishop consider this issue?

To create a Catholic organization in the first place, and to allow it to operate, an organization must get permission from the local bishop, in the case of the KofC, that was the Archbishop of Hartford. The Archbishop gave his permission and approved the orginal charter

Any bishop of a diocese, can, at any time, forbid a group from operating for any reason that he sees fit. The KofC is no exception.

So, by definition, every diocese that has a KofC Council has the permission of the local bishop to both have that name, to present it self as a Catholic organization of lay faithful, and to operate in that diocese.