Overcoming the Past in Evangelization

[rapunzel77]

I wasn’t sure where to put this thread but I guess it can go best here. I have talked to people who are either pagans, atheists, or other religions who can’t seem to get past the fact that the some people in the Catholic Church have committed terrible crimes through the centuries. Of course I always point out that they don’t represent the Faith but it did get me thinking a lot about how the Church has evangelized in the past and how this has become a barrier for some people.

I am a student of history so I have studied what has been done in the name of Christianity for a long time. We look back on the issues of slavery, displacement of Native peoples, colonization, imperialism, etc with sadness and shame and rightly so because those things were not right to do. Sadly, to often it has been the case that Christianity has been associated with Europe. Granted, the Faith shaped Europe but it did not originate there nor is it exclusively a “white” religion. However, when one looks at how the Faith was spread, there seems to be some disturbing things. The missionaries came with conquerors. Granted, they did what they could to defend the Native peoples but it still lead to the near eradication of their cultures, etc.

Is being a Christian necessarily being a westernized person? We know that the answer is no but there are sad examples of Native peoples being displaced, put onto reservations, and forced to adopt western dress, customs, etc in order to be a Christian. The Church has been a little bit better in this regard but some similar things have happened.

I’m not sure if I am making any sense with this post but I’m just throwing some of this stuff out there for discussion. Is it possible that the Faith can be practiced completely in a non-western or non-urban way or is it necessary to transform places to resemble western cities, towns, churches, etc?

Basically, the scenario I am referring to is when Missionaries go into the rainforest of the Amazon and try to bring the Faith to them but in the process the missionaries tell the people that they have to give up their culture, etc. This has happened many times in the past and continues to in some places. Is it possible for the Faith to adapt to a rainforest, primitive setting? Or is it essential for it to maintain a western cultural milieu? I ask these questions because in the past several decades there has been a struggle with multiculturalism and how it relates to the Faith. How can we have authentic multiculturalism that is based in the Faith?

Is being a good, faithful Catholic only possible if they are also westernized?

 

[SonCatcher]

Is being a good, faithful Catholic only possible if they are also westernized?

No.

Catholicism is truly universal. I heard one priest explain that several ecumenical councils took place as a result of the Gospel spreading into new areas. Take a look at the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts. Droves of Gentiles were converting and some Jewish Catholics insisted they should follow Jewish customs. The council determined that circumcision and dietary restrictions were cultural phenomena and not matters of faith.

In all the Marian apparitions I know of, she appeared as of the same ethnicity as those she came to.

Whenever we find a difference, we should look into whether it is a matter of faith or culture. It is truly sad when non-understanding missionaries think they need to make their new converts White.

Jesus wasn’t.

 

[Shiranui117]

The simplest answer is an emphatic NO.

Christianity didn’t even originate in the West; it originated in the Middle East. Byzantium is certainly different from Western Christianity in terms of worship, regardless of whether or not they’re Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. The same is true for the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics of those patrimonies; Ethiopia wasn’t conquered because they were a Christian nation, yet they practiced, worshiped and taught in a completely Oriental Orthodox manner. You can even find many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes in the West, and there are plenty of Arab, Chinese and Japanese Krishitans and martyrs of those same areas. The Japanese blended aesthetics of their culture with the faith of Christianity, half to keep their heads safe from the shogun’s swords, admittedly. Some of the oldest churches were founded in India by St. Thomas, the apostle, such as the Syriac Orthodox, and Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches (I believe that’s correct; I hope it is! )

In summation, you DO NOT have to have Western culture to be Christian. Just look at how our brothers in Orthodoxy, both Eastern and Oriental worship and teach, and how our brother Eastern Catholics worship and teach.

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

Questions.
How does an indigenous people accept the Christian/Catholic faith completely, without abandoning their native spiritual belief, and with it, their cultural identity?

Are these belief systems not mutually exclusive?

What choice is there?

Is there a line you can’t cross in terms of making the concepts of Catholicism and Christianity understandable to indigenous people without allowing them to make it something it’s not?

Is it not the case that much of the “oddness” of doctrine, and variability in practice the result of pushing that boundary too hard already?

Has not the Catholic Church as been accused of paganizing its message and integrating pagan views from its earliest formation as it is?

How do you further integrate native spirituality into Christianity without being accused of, if not actually integrating non-Christian beliefs and practices into the local expression of
Catholicism in these cases?

Isn’t it a given that in order to become Catholic, the extant set of native beliefs are necessarily displaced?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

How do you further integrate native spirituality into Christianity without being accused of, if not actually integrating non-Christian beliefs and practices into the local expression of
Catholicism in these cases?

Isn’t it a given that in order to become Catholic, the extant set of native beliefs are necessarily displaced?

Native spirituality is a part of a culture, not all of it. I’ve met Indians who are Catholic and hold on to their culture (but not Hinduism).

 

[ausculta]

I don’t have much time right now, so I answered the questions that seemed to cover the most ground. I’ll try to flesh out these responses further in the future if time permits.

Questions.
How does an indigenous people accept the Christian/Catholic faith completely, without abandoning their native spiritual belief, and with it, their cultural identity?

Whatever is good and true within their culture is retained. This usually includes language, music, art, etc being preserved and implemented into the liturgy. As far as “spiritual beliefs”, the CCC states that man is by nature and vocation a religious being. Man is able to understand some spiritual truths through natural reason alone, and it’s these truths that the Church will focus on when converting the indigenous population. The non-christian is fully able to arrive at some theological truths on his own, but not all. Revelation is needed to complete the picture. All that is true and good (all that corresponds to the deposit of faith, what to believe and how to act) is retained and used as a foundation to build the people into a fully Christian people.

Are these belief systems not mutually exclusive?

Only in the sense that their is error to some degree and truth to some degree.

More later,

God’s peace,

 

[kenofken]

“We bring you distilled alcohol, smallpox, Jesus and a gauranteed lifetime job in our new silver mines. We’re here to help…”

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

Well yeah. there’s that. LOL

 

[Tomkinst]

To Kenofken,

There’s a tendancy on some folks to look at history and see only the bad and others who see only the good. While some new diseases are infecting, others are treated and cured. Look to the Church in Africa. The Catholic Church, other religions, the West and, yes, even the United States have done great things in health and quality of life. They are beating back malaria, tropical diseases, AIDS and getting cleaner water and more nutrition. People are living longer. All Good. They are also getting television and cellphones. Neutral at best. And they are getting some doses of greed and materialism. Bad. Some of this comes with a changing of their cultural heritage.

Unfortunately, the best of intentions bring changes–some good and some not so good. On the whole, the world is better because of our Church. It is better because of our generousity. It is better because we get down and help. Think of the wonderful work of Catholic Charties and the missionaries like Mother Teresa.

I taught with a a fellow once who felt that our religious evangelizing had destoryed cultures and made things worse. He *evangelized *that to his students. He says he’s a progressive and doesn’t mind telling our culture that we should be more like…this one or that one. If he were a pioneer, I don’t think he would have kept his opinions to himself then anymore than he did in his classes or does now. History will prove him right or wrong. I hope a future history teacher will be kinder to him and his thoughts than he is to those of the past who sacrificed to bring Jesus and a “higher standard of living” to the poor of the world.

We would all like to cherry-pick and take what we like and makes us better and retain some of what we preceive as a loss. I would like to go back to the late 1950’s for the moral safety of our children but I don’t want to risk them getting TB or measles. Frankly, I can’t think of a “native culture” today that would prefer “going backwards” to a time before and accepting those goods with those bads. Can you?