Lefebvre´s "Letter to Confused Catholics" is awesome!

[Lisa44]

Lisa:…
Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Hi Michael, it sounds like you have an interesting story or stories to tell. I won’t side track this thread but hopefully I will hear more in the future. Maybe, we can start a new thread on the topic of your choice and you can explain how you have positioned yourself in the church or churches of your choice.

 

[po18guy]

I completely agree that there are some deep problems in the Church today, and far too many priests are not teaching the beautiful truths of the Church and not helping the souls in their parishes. But yet, I think in most cases, the ultimate responsibilty is on each one of us. I am a recent re-convert to the Church, coming back after 38 years away. I am completely blown away by all the fantastic spiritual resources that are available to Catholics, including many beautiful books written by saints and to-be saints, all the beautiful devotions in the Church, EWTN, Catholic radio, the many resources on the internet, and on and on. If I was just depending on what I was going to get from a 45 minute Mass each Sunday (and alas, many times, an almost spiritually devoid Mass), yes, I would be spiritually lost. But being willing to put in the time and energy to take advantage of all that is offered to us as Catholics, I have been able to learn and grow despite all the problems in the Church, and I know many, many others who are spiritual giants in the Church despite all the problems. We in the western world really have no excuse if we don’t know our Church. We all have access to Bibles, and many spiritual books. We can all say the Rosary, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, pray to the Sacred Heart. And many, many could have access to the Liturgy of the Hours if they really wanted to.

Fr. Groeschel said the worst time of the Church has come and gone long ago, and that was when Christ died on the Cross. The apostles and disciples had all lost hope and completly abandoned everything. There seemed no hope for anyone at that time. The Church in the past 2000 years has seen many crises come and go. What we are experiencing now is nothing new. We live in a fallen world, in a world where Satan is vying for each and every soul. But our Lord came and died for each and every soul as well. We just have to say yes as our Blessed Mother did.

I have seen many things in the Church that upset me greatly, but I really believe it’s up to the people to, excuse the expression, get off their butts and take responsibility for their spiritual lives.

I hope that doesn’t seem to harsh.

Mary

Amen! The big picture is remains beautiful.

 

[Lisa44]

The heresy of relativism, which Lefebvre’s letter talks about is particularily pernicious. How can you even convince people that Jesus is THE truth, when people believe that there is no truth and that all religions are equally valid. Unless they wish to engage in a long debate I don’t see how to turn people’s minds around. Relativism is a particularily debilitating heresy. I would find it easier to dialogue with a Muslim or a Buddhist then to dialogue with a person steeped in relativism. At least “religious” people are interested in finding truth, whereas modern non-religious people are convinced that it is “all good”.

This heresy has infected the Catholic church and it could destroy it. We already see we are outnumbered by Muslims in the world. A Muslim would NEVER say you could get to heaven by worshipping Jesus. A Buddhist would NEVER say you can obtain nirvana by worshipping Jesus. They are more on the ball then the Catholic Church in a way. At least they haven’t fallen prey to relativism.

Two opposite ideas cannot both be true. Jesus cannot be God and not be God. Jesus cannot both be the only means of Salvation and also not the only means of Salvation.

If we start saying there are other ways to obtain Salvation than we ourselves are killing Jesus! Denying him I think is what he says in the bible. Anyways…good luck. Good luck with that Catholic Church. Lets see where that gets us.

 

[aicirt]

The same reason the Vatican is “unaware” of all the other heretic bishops and priests in the world.

I listen to EWTN. The priests refer to the poor training of seminarians. Aren’t there priests that check on what is going on in various parishes? I have to say, some of the things I’ve heard from the parish priest and some of the parishoners, I can’t believe.

 

[alacoque]

This heresy has infected the Catholic church and it could destroy it.

Be not afraid…remember: “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

It is impossible for the Church to be destroyed:

1. because Jesus, who is God, promised it would/could not be
2. because it is the very Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ (both of which are eternal)
3. because Jesus promised to remain with us, always, until the end of the world - and where Jesus is, there is the Church - and vice versa

The temptation of the father of lies is to just this despair for the Church…this fear that all the things wrong in the Church will take her down. He’d love us to believe that and act as if we believe it.

But Jesus says that in the world we will have trouble - but to be of good heart, He has conquered the world…

fear not!!

 

[Brooklyn]

The heresy of relativism, which Lefebvre’s letter talks about is particularily pernicious. How can you even convince people that Jesus is THE truth, when people believe that there is no truth and that all religions are equally valid. Unless they wish to engage in a long debate I don’t see how to turn people’s minds around. Relativism is a particularily debilitating heresy. I would find it easier to dialogue with a Muslim or a Buddhist then to dialogue with a person steeped in relativism. At least “religious” people are interested in finding truth, whereas modern non-religious people are convinced that it is “all good”.

This heresy has infected the Catholic church and it could destroy it. We already see we are outnumbered by Muslims in the world. A Muslim would NEVER say you could get to heaven by worshipping Jesus. A Buddhist would NEVER say you can obtain nirvana by worshipping Jesus. They are more on the ball then the Catholic Church in a way. At least they haven’t fallen prey to relativism.

I think this way of thinking is taking way more responsibility than we are required to take. It is us not up to any of us to “convince” anyone of the truth of Christianity. It is up to us to witness to the Gospel, to plant the seeds, but it is up to the Holy Spirit to provide the growth. And there can be no growth unless an individual says “yes” to the Holy Spirit, just as our Blessed Mother did.

And we have an absolute promise from Our Lord, as stated in a previous post, that the gates of hell will never prevail against his Church, and I think that the past 2000-year history of the Church more than proves that statement.

Certainly the leaders of the Church will have to answer for falsehoods or lack of spirituality that there may be in the Church. But we will also have to answer individually for our own response to the Holy Spirit. We are promised by our Lord that if we seek, we shall find. And if we have not found the answers, maybe we aren’t really seeking. Maybe this material world means more to us than the Spirit.

If we are “confused Catholics”, we must look at ourselves and see what our own culpability is, because we are promised answers if we seek them. And I, for one, can attest to that. The Holy Spirit is available to anyone who is willing to do the spiritual work required to access Him, which includes repentance. We must ask ourselves if we have truly repented of our own ways. “Work our your own salvation.” We will not be able to blame the Church when we stand before our Lord.

Mary

 

[pnewton]

I was going to make an honest attempt to see what he had to say. I read the preface an flipped to the first section when it struck me. This is no letter. It is a book. Oh well, as I do not have time to read it I can only notice that I don’t think it has much bearing on me anyway. After all, unlike the preface says, I do not sucscribe to the idea that experience equals authority and unlike the first paragraph, I am not, nor do I know these confused Catholics he speaks of. I can believe that his French background leaves him with a different perspective than I, but I will stick to real encyclicals whose authority extends beyond the human perspective of experience equals authority.

 

[I_Believe]

The 1960’s culture which emphasized selfishness is good, do whatever you want, sexual morals are optional, and the other retarded beliefs they engendered was the cause of the destructive changes. The hippies just used Vatican II as a cover. And it gets blamed unnecessarily.

Nice.

Can’t blame the 1960’s mentality, we gotta blame the council…yeah, that’s it.

Hi Bob, the trouble with that view is that the traditional communities, be it SSPX or independents, are unfazed by the pressures of society. The traditional catholic family looks like the catholic family of , say, 1940. Lot’s of kids because mom stays home doing what Catholic moms do. Not all of them of course, but those trad moms that do work send their children to traditional Catholic schools. These children are raised as Catholics, believing everything our grandparents did. Christ the King is first priority. Trad Chapels don’t move Assumption Thursday to Sunday. Trads offer it up and take time off work to keep the Holy Day of Obligation. Unlike the dioceses that moves it to Sunday because “it’s more convenient”. More convenient for who ? Us ?

I’m not saying VII is to blame for our self centered attitude regarding the practice of our Faith, but it certainly enabled it.

What enabled the appalling poll results we see ? Just over 50% of Catholics are pro life. Conduct that poll outside the doors of a trad Chapel as folks are leaving after Mass, and you’ll get near 100 % answering “Pro Life”.

Why the difference ?

 

[BobCatholic]

Hi Bob, the trouble with that view is that the traditional communities, be it SSPX or independents, are unfazed by the pressures of society.

However, people in the communities are fazed

I’m not saying VII is to blame for our self centered attitude regarding the practice of our Faith, but it certainly enabled it.

No, it was used as an excuse. It hardly enabled it. I’m sure if Trent were done in 1965, I’m sure we’d have people who would use Canon I on justification to say protestants are right on sola fide. That doesn’t mean Trent is at fault. It meant that the misinterpretors were at fault.

I actually read the V2 documents. I did not see women priests, active homosexual priests, contraception being declared OK, clown masses, guitar masses, liturgical dancing, nuns getting rid of their habits, moral relativism, priests dressing in wierd outfits, and the like. But of course, V2 is blamed for all of that nonsense.

I see it like this. Which is easier to do:
Blaming Vatican II - and pushing the Church to basically overturn it OR
Blaming the 1960’s “selfishness is good culture” which is a worldwide phenomenon and pushing the entire world to change it.

The answer is obvious. Vatican II is easier to blame.

What enabled the appalling poll results we see ? Just over 50% of Catholics are pro life. Conduct that poll outside the doors of a trad Chapel as folks are leaving after Mass, and you’ll get near 100 % answering “Pro Life”.

Why the difference ?

Wheat and chaff. What else is new? It has always been this way.

 

[foxscape]

As a confused catholic, I find this passage of the letter, in chapter 11 on religious liberty, especially troubling. I wish to know what you all think of it:

"Religious liberty cannot be applied to false religions; it does not allow of being split up in this way; the only right that must be recognized by the state is that of the citizens to practice Christ’s religion.

This will certainly seem an exhorbitant claim to those who do not have the Faith. But the Catholic uncontaminated by the spirit of the times will find it quite normal and legitimate. Unfortunately many Christians have lost sight of these realities: it has been so often repeated that we must respect other people’s ideas, put ourselves in their place, accept their point of view. The nonsensical “everyone to his own truth” has become the rule; dialogue has become the highest cardinal virtue, dialogue which necessarily leads to concessions. Through misplaced charity the Christian has come to think that he must go one step further than his interlocutors; he is usually the only one to do so. He no longer sacrifices himself for the truth, as the martyrs did. Instead, he sacrifices the truth."

I have tried hard to find the flaw in the Archbishop´s reasoning, but so far I have been unsuccessful. The implications of this position are enourmous, and undermine what almost everyone takes for granted these days; muslims have a “right” to build mosques in Europe and the US, catholicism should not be the only protected religion, etc. Here in Spain the socialist government is even preparing a new law called the Freedom of Religion Act, designed to remove all privileges of the catholic religion. If you disagree with Lefebvre you have no argument against such a law, which evidently seeks to debilitate the CC, the arch-enemy of socialism, and to place the CC on the same legal footing as any crazy, heretical, pagan sect.

I will be interested to hear from you all. I am feeling very CONFUSED!

Actually the first sentence of the Archbishop’s statement makes no sense at all. Religious liberty cannot be used in the same sentence as “false religion”. When one says that people may have religious liberty as long as they are Christian (or Catholic, or Orthodox or whatever) than what they are proposing is not liberty at all.

The Catholic Church and many other Christian groups that believed that Christianity was the only way to live and had to be imposed at any cost have cause untold cultural damage. The aboriginal people of Canada are a tremendous example of a culture that was decimated by missionary activities. Aboriginal children were forced into to religiously based schools and forced to abandon their cultural beliefs, language and entire culture because it was believed that the Christian way of life was superior. What has been left in the wake of this Christianization is a hopelessly broken culture. This is the case in Canada, the United States, Mexico, most of South America, Siberia, Australia and many other places where people have been forced to our way of life because the only religious liberty that we ‘Christians’ would accept was the liberty to be Christian. That, I would suggest, is the legacy of the type of ideas that the Archbishop advocates in his letter.

Sincerely,
JRB

 

[I_Believe]

Actually the first sentence of the Archbishop’s statement makes no sense at all. Religious liberty cannot be used in the same sentence as “false religion”. When one says that people may have religious liberty as long as they are Christian (or Catholic, or Orthodox or whatever) than what they are proposing is not liberty at all.

The Catholic Church and many other Christian groups that believed that Christianity was the only way to live and had to be imposed at any cost have cause untold cultural damage. The aboriginal people of Canada are a tremendous example of a culture that was decimated by missionary activities. Aboriginal children were forced into to religiously based schools and forced to abandon their cultural beliefs, language and entire culture because it was believed that the Christian way of life was superior. What has been left in the wake of this Christianization is a hopelessly broken culture. This is the case in Canada, the United States, Mexico, most of South America, Siberia, Australia and many other places where people have been forced to our way of life because the only religious liberty that we ‘Christians’ would accept was the liberty to be Christian. That, I would suggest, is the legacy of the type of ideas that the Archbishop advocates in his letter.

Sincerely,
JRB

Do you reject the words of Christ ?

 

[santodomingo]

Actually the first sentence of the Archbishop’s statement makes no sense at all. Religious liberty cannot be used in the same sentence as “false religion”. When one says that people may have religious liberty as long as they are Christian (or Catholic, or Orthodox or whatever) than what they are proposing is not liberty at all.

The Catholic Church and many other Christian groups that believed that Christianity was the only way to live and had to be imposed at any cost have cause untold cultural damage. The aboriginal people of Canada are a tremendous example of a culture that was decimated by missionary activities. Aboriginal children were forced into to religiously based schools and forced to abandon their cultural beliefs, language and entire culture because it was believed that the Christian way of life was superior. What has been left in the wake of this Christianization is a hopelessly broken culture. This is the case in Canada, the United States, Mexico, most of South America, Siberia, Australia and many other places where people have been forced to our way of life because the only religious liberty that we ‘Christians’ would accept was the liberty to be Christian. That, I would suggest, is the legacy of the type of ideas that the Archbishop advocates in his letter.

Sincerely,
JRB

I´m even more confused after reading your post! So effectively you´re saying that all the christian missionaries, - St. Paul, St Patrick, St. Metodius, St Ciril, St. Francis Xavier, etc-wasted their time preaching the Gospel to the pagans? All those missionaries who preferred martyrdom to silencing the Gospel of Christ, who gave their lives in order to bring His salvation to the ends of the world should have simply stayed at home, according to you.

Are you one of those liberals who believes the Spanish missionaries,- dominicans, franciscans, and above all jesuits,- should have left all the native americans to enjoy their idolatry, devil-worship and human sacrifices, rather than “impose” the Truth of Salvation through Christ?

I fail to understand how you can reconcile the belief that Christ is the Truth and the only way to the Father with the idea that all religions are equally valid. If other religions teach doctrine that is evidently opposed to christianity (they all deny the Divinity of Christ) then they are spiritually harmful because they are obstacles to the Truth. Therefore we should not in any way encourage them.

If there is a flaw in my reasoning I would like to know about it. Thank you.

 

[JustaServant]

Actually the first sentence of the Archbishop’s statement makes no sense at all. Religious liberty cannot be used in the same sentence as “false religion”. When one says that people may have religious liberty as long as they are Christian (or Catholic, or Orthodox or whatever) than what they are proposing is not liberty at all.

The Catholic Church and many other Christian groups that believed that Christianity was the only way to live and had to be imposed at any cost have cause untold cultural damage. The aboriginal people of Canada are a tremendous example of a culture that was decimated by missionary activities. Aboriginal children were forced into to religiously based schools and forced to abandon their cultural beliefs, language and entire culture because it was believed that the Christian way of life was superior. What has been left in the wake of this Christianization is a hopelessly broken culture. This is the case in Canada, the United States, Mexico, most of South America, Siberia, Australia and many other places where people have been forced to our way of life because the only religious liberty that we ‘Christians’ would accept was the liberty to be Christian. That, I would suggest, is the legacy of the type of ideas that the Archbishop advocates in his letter.

Sincerely,
JRB

Even secular, unbelieving historians would disagree with all you have blurted out here. What do you think the world was like before christianity?
In the ancient world, when you got sick, unless you could afford a physician, you simply died. If you were a widow with children, you would starve to death, nobody was there to take care of you.
When the Church was born, all that changed. Christians took care of widows, orphans, the sick and the elderly. Those who died poor were given a decent burial. Many ancient pagans practiced infanticide by abandoning unwanted babies, so the church rescued those babies and gave them homes. Exiles and travelers received hospitality. Prisoners were visited and comforted. Hospitals were a Christian creation. St. Ephraem, St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom built a great number of hospitals.
During the Middle Ages the plague took millions of lives. Priests, monks, and nuns took care of the sick and therefore died from the plague at alarming rates. Whole communities of monasteries and convents were wiped out.
Historically, the Church has taken seriously the words of St. Francis of Assisi:
“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

 

[foxscape]

Even secular, unbelieving historians would disagree with all you have blurted out here. What do you think the world was like before christianity?
In the ancient world, when you got sick, unless you could afford a physician, you simply died. If you were a widow with children, you would starve to death, nobody was there to take care of you.
When the Church was born, all that changed. Christians took care of widows, orphans, the sick and the elderly. Those who died poor were given a decent burial. Many ancient pagans practiced infanticide by abandoning unwanted babies, so the church rescued those babies and gave them homes. Exiles and travelers received hospitality. Prisoners were visited and comforted. Hospitals were a Christian creation. St. Ephraem, St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom built a great number of hospitals.
During the Middle Ages the plague took millions of lives. Priests, monks, and nuns took care of the sick and therefore died from the plague at alarming rates. Whole communities of monasteries and convents were wiped out.
Historically, the Church has taken seriously the words of St. Francis of Assisi:
“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

Now to be clear, because you all love to twist words and talk about things that have nothing to do with what I have posted. I was more speaking of the second wave of evangelization or the evangelization that accompanied colonial expansion. The evangelization of Europe does not seem to have had the same destructive effects as the evangelization of the world conquored by European powers.

The destruction of aboriginal communities is palpabal and I see it every single day. Sadly that destruction is closely tied to the expansion of Christianity and was perpetrated by religious men and women (though not always Roman Catholic). To be honest I am not certain what the right ocurse of action would have been, perhaps it would have been better to try gradually intergrating Christianity into the lives of these people. What I do know for certain is the destruction that was brought on by Christian missionary work. I have spoken to a few tribal elders in my native Alberta that remember what life was like for them before residential schools where religion was forced on their children. They typicall weep when looking at the situation today.

I’m not even trying to deny that the Chruch has done many wonderful things throughout history… this is undenialble. It is, however, important to see the sins that the Church has commited and attempt to learn from them. I believe this is the real reason for the shift in the Vatican’s view of other religions following the Second Vatican Council. Rather than assuming that the non-Christian people of the world were unenlightened heathens have nothing of God in their lives and attempting to force our vision of God upon them, the new approach focuses on finding the limited ways God has revealed himself to them and through gentle dialogue helping them to see the fullness of God’s love.

Admitedly this approach is not a self-congradualatory as telling non-Christians that they are wrong and making them convert to our way of thinking by force. It is, however, the more human way. It is certainly a way that will keep Christians from repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[rkrispies]

. . .

Statistics show that the practice of the Catholic Faith peaked just before the changes of Vatican II were implemented. Things such as Mass attendance, number of Priests, number of Sisters, number of Brothers, number of Catholic schools, Religious orders and other indicators. Almost immediately after the changes of Vatican II were implemented, the practice of the faith began to decline.

. . .

Thomas

Thomas, the only statistics I have seen posted here are for ~1960 and ~2000. Two points do not make a trend, let alone suggest that anything “peaked” immediately before the Council. Do you have additional statistics for time prior to ~1960? Or are you connecting two dots and calling it a trend?

Chris

 

[santodomingo]

The destruction of aboriginal communities is palpabal and I see it every single day. Sadly that destruction is closely tied to the expansion of Christianity and was perpetrated by religious men and women (though not always Roman Catholic). To be honest I am not certain what the right ocurse of action would have been, perhaps it would have been better to try gradually intergrating Christianity into the lives of these people. What I do know for certain is the destruction that was brought on by Christian missionary work. I have spoken to a few tribal elders in my native Alberta that remember what life was like for them before residential schools where religion was forced on their children. They typicall weep when looking at the situation today.

 

[JustaServant]

foxscape;5331847:

Don´t you think that the destruction of native american communties has more to do with the white man´s imperialism than with his religion? I know little or nothing about what happened in Canada, but he sistematic extermination of the red indians in present-day USA (perpetrated mainly by protestant settlers) has nothing to do with evangelism. The settlers were completely uninterested in converting the Apache or the Sioux or any other tribe to christianity, because they were not even considered fully human!

This is in sharp contrast to the evangelization of latin America by the spanish, where native indians were treated as human beings with inalienable rights from the outset. The Spanish crown and the religious missionaries were the fiercest defenders of the native americans, against the slave traders.

The undeniable fact that the CC has committed sins makes no difference to the Lord´s command (not suggestion) to go and baptize all nations

in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

It has never been the Church´s policy to “force” anyone to convert. You will find not a single Church document which calls on missionaries to use force or coaction of any sort in order to obtain conversions. A forced conversion is not a real conversion. You cannot force anyone to love God! I think you must be confusing christianity with Islam!

Let me put it simply. A buddhist does not believe Christ is God. Therefore he is wrong, perhaps through no fault of his own; that´s not for us to decide. The fact is he is wrong, and we are called to bring the Truth of the Gospel to all unbelievers. That is not a difficult concept, I hope.

You beat me to it, thanks.

 

[foxscape]

foxscape;5331847:

Don´t you think that the destruction of native american communties has more to do with the white man´s imperialism than with his religion? I know little or nothing about what happened in Canada, but he sistematic extermination of the red indians in present-day USA (perpetrated mainly by protestant settlers) has nothing to do with evangelism. The settlers were completely uninterested in converting the Apache or the Sioux or any other tribe to christianity, because they were not even considered fully human!

This is in sharp contrast to the evangelization of latin America by the spanish, where native indians were treated as human beings with inalienable rights from the outset. The Spanish crown and the religious missionaries were the fiercest defenders of the native americans, against the slave traders.

The undeniable fact that the CC has committed sins makes no difference to the Lord´s command (not suggestion) to go and baptize all nations

in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

It has never been the Church´s policy to “force” anyone to convert. You will find not a single Church document which calls on missionaries to use force or coaction of any sort in order to obtain conversions. A forced conversion is not a real conversion. You cannot force anyone to love God! I think you must be confusing christianity with Islam!

Let me put it simply. A buddhist does not believe Christ is God. Therefore he is wrong, perhaps through no fault of his own; that´s not for us to decide. The fact is he is wrong, and we are called to bring the Truth of the Gospel to all unbelievers. That is not a difficult concept, I hope.

First the religion of the settlers and their expansionism was closely connected, perhaps more in Canada than in the United States, and as such I think it would be foolish to assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Second, the native people of South America remain deeply marginalized with their societies in chaos to this day because of the actions of European settlers. The Maya of the Yucatan peninsula are a good example of this. Their societies are so broken that there is little hope that they will pull themselves out of it. So I think your assertion that the Spanish crown and the Church defended these people is a bit short sighted and possibly coloured by your desire to only see the good in the action of Christian settlers.

Don’t you think that recognizing that the Catholic Church has committed sins perhaps we should endeavor to avoid committing those same sins in the future? Perhaps that explains the change in approaches to the religions of others as a result of the Second Vatican Council.

Is everything about Buddhism or Islam or Judaism wrong?

Are there areas that we can find common ground on in an attempt to lead people of other faiths to Christ without destroying their cultures in the process?

I think the answer to all those questions is yes. As such, I disagree with the Archbishop respectfully.

 

[aicirt]

santodomingo;5332122:

First the religion of the settlers and their expansionism was closely connected, perhaps more in Canada than in the United States, and as such I think it would be foolish to assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Second, the native people of South America remain deeply marginalized with their societies in chaos to this day because of the actions of European settlers. The Maya of the Yucatan peninsula are a good example of this. Their societies are so broken that there is little hope that they will pull themselves out of it. So I think your assertion that the Spanish crown and the Church defended these people is a bit short sighted and possibly coloured by your desire to only see the good in the action of Christian settlers.

Don’t you think that recognizing that the Catholic Church has committed sins perhaps we should endeavor to avoid committing those same sins in the future? Perhaps that explains the change in approaches to the religions of others as a result of the Second Vatican Council.

Is everything

about Buddhism or Islam or Judaism wrong?

Are there areas that we can find common ground on in an attempt to lead people of other faiths to Christ without destroying their cultures in the process?

I think the answer to all those questions is yes. As such, I disagree with the Archbishop respectfully.

I don’t recall Buddists or Jews destroying other cultures, statues or houses of worship. But the Muslims did destroy a 5,000 year old statue of Buddha about 10 years ago even after the UN tried to intervene.

Also the treasures in Egypt were neglected and forgotten when Egyptians embraced Islam. Rediscovered by Napeloen, much was moved to Europe. Many have thought if they hadn’t been moved, they would have been destoyed by Muslims because they were pagan images.

Google “human sacrifice in the Americas” and you’ll find lots of information. Some 80,000 were sacrifice in one weekend. Mel Gibson’s movie “Apocolypto” gives a good idea of what the Spaniards found. I was amazed. With the amount of killing going on, I’m surprised there were any Indians.

Our Lady of Gudalupe appeared in 1531 and the sacrifices were still going on. Many converted after that.

Last night, “The Journey Home”, EWTN, had a Muslim convert who told of a Catholic school in India begun by missionary nuns. It was “the” place to send ones children for an education. The European nuns have either died or retired. In their places are converts mainly from the untouchable class. Although highly educated, these nuns are still not accepted by the parents of their students. The adults have difficulty adjusting to the idea of an untouchable, Catholic convert or not, instructing their children.

I’m not pleased with the stories I’ve heard how the American Indians and Australian aborigines were treated. I was shocked to learn that Catholic orphans were shipped off to Australia. I have no idea what the people in control were thinking.

However, overall, I think they left the world better than when they found it. Certainly not perfect but in many ways better.

 

[santodomingo]

santodomingo;5332122:

First the religion of the settlers and their expansionism was closely connected, perhaps more in Canada than in the United States, and as such I think it would be foolish to assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Second, the native people of South America remain deeply marginalized with their societies in chaos to this day because of the actions of European settlers. The Maya of the Yucatan peninsula are a good example of this. Their societies are so broken that there is little hope that they will pull themselves out of it. So I think your assertion that the Spanish crown and the Church defended these people is a bit short sighted and possibly coloured by your desire to only see the good in the action of Christian settlers.

I think we are going off topic here, but I can´t let you get away with this smear on Spanish history. Your sweeping statement that “the native people of South America remain deeply marginalized”, is simply not true. It is true of the US, where tourists travel to artificially created reserves to see native indians, like some kind of circus attraction. In Latin America the majority of the continent´s inhabitants descend from the natives. In North America there was a systematic extermination of the natives, which never happened in Latin America under Spanish and Portuguese (catholic) rule. It is thanks to anti-catholic propaganda that so many people have this notion of a fictitious extermination of natives in Latin America 500 years ago, and forget about a real genocide that ocurred in North America less than 200 years ago.

Concerning evangelization of the native americans Queen Isabel the Catholic wrote the following: “Do not force anyone to become a Christian, but instruct them well in the Catholic Faith, for it is so beautiful, they will readily embrace it.”

This remarkable queen (who is in the process of beatification) wrote a Testament in 1504, entreating her husband, Fernando the Catholic and her daughter, Juana, to treat the natives fairly, and reminded them that the reason God had given Spain these new territories was for the spreading of the Gospel. I quote from this document: “Do not tolerate that any of the indians …receive any ill treatment in their persons or their property. Rather ensure that they are treated fairly, and if any abuse has been committed make amends.”

I don´t lump all “christian settlers” into the same bag. The evangelization of Latin America in the 15 and 16 centuries by Spanish missionaries has nothing to do with the genocide of the native americans at the hands of protestant settlers in North America in the 19 century.

Is everything

about Buddhism or Islam or Judaism wrong?

No. But they are still false religions. You don´t have to deny everything the Church teaches to be a heretic. You only have to deny ONE article of faith.

Are there areas that we can find common ground on in an attempt to lead people of other faiths to Christ without destroying their cultures in the process?

“Finding common ground” sounds good. However, the phrase makes my skin crawl because liberals use it to mean toleration of evil. For example, Obama constantly talks about finding common ground between the two sides of the abortion issue. I thought catholics were called to **fight **evil, not find common ground with it!

The same goes for finding common ground with other religions. It sounds good, but in practice it means surrendering any hope of non-catholics converting. If the principal goal of the Church is to get on well with other religions, rather than to spread the Gospel of Christ, it is hardly surprising if nobody converts. However, as christians our primary duty is not to make friends, but disciples.

This is not just theory; what people believe has a huge impact on their lives and on society, as the Archbishop writes in his letter:

“We cannot insist on the freedom of all religious societies, within human societies, without at the same time granting them moral liberty. Islam allows polygamy; Protestants - depending on the particular sect- have more or less lax positions on the indissolubility of marriage and on contraception. The criterion of good and evil is disappearing. Abortion os no longer illegal in Europe, except in catholic Ireland. It is impossible for the Church of God to condone these abuses by affirming religious liberty.”

As such, I disagree with the Archbishop respectfully.

Please, someone give me a reasoned answer why the Archbishop´s conclusions are wrong. I genuinely want to understand why Pope Benedict entered a mosque and prayed with muslim leaders during his visit to the Holy Land last month.