Politically Incorrect Canonization

[Daralharb]

All that being said, for the last couple of days, I’ve had it in my head to make a breast plate using traditional native materials and have the design be the Chi Rho symbol we have come to know to and love.

I was obsessed with a few things as a kid: Native Americans, anything Jewish, and history. The synergy of my passions results in a really fun faith despite everyone trying to drag it down sometimes, of which I am sometimes(often ) the biggest enemy to my faith.

Got any tips, Trickster on such a artistic/practical endeavor? Feel free to PM “how-to instructions”. “How”-to instructions on something native… See, we can have fun and poke at each other in a manner which is only offensive if we let it be.

 

[malphono]

… while the Norwegians would rather just be left alone while they eat weird things considered edible only in the throes of death by starvation by any American.

Are you referring to snow grouse and/or hardfiskur by any chance? :bigyikes:

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Since this thread started with the question of the possible canonization of Queen Isabella, my issue with this revolves around the question of the “point” of naming someone a saint. Presumably this would include the idea that this person is being held up as an example to the faithful.

I just don’t “get” the inspirational value of holding up some royal figure who lived 500 years ago and whose life and challenges bears little to no resemblance to today’s challenges. Contemporary figures such as Ven. Solanus Casey, the Marine chaplain Fr. Capodanno, Thea Bowman – these are the kinds of figures and inspirational examples that the Church should be more aggressively considering.

 

[trickster]

I think political correctness should be flushed down the toilet of history. It’s no substitute for morality.

A superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one. I would guess at the time this was thought well and good.

I do sometimes fondly imagine what it would be like to strip those, who prate on the nobility of native cultures, of all vestiges of Western civilisation, and make them live as natives for a decade.

In sum: the locals lost. Their conquerors played them off each other and with better organisation, weapons and tactics comparatively few men beat whole nations.

If saints are to be role models…then don’t you think the church needs to acknowledge and show where the weakness of the saint is? I agree that we need to look at the actions of the saint in his or her time and place…and often saints have been catalysts of change and not the darlings of the local bishop…the chruch in the canonization process needs to address the political problems that the life fo the saint caused as well…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

You care more about your culture than your immortal soul? Quite frankly trading an Amerindian tongue for Castellan seems a decent price for one’s salvation. Your culture may have been horribly brutalised but your people were given the True Faith. No need to complain.

Laudate, what am i going to do with you

As soon as I learn what Castellan tongue is … I will have an answer for you…

Cheerz.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

In all honesty though, We don’t even choose who is a Saint in heaven or not, God has made that decision for us.

Now, how do we figure out what God already knows in order to Declare a person a Saint? By “judging” them by the same standards as all others declared Saints by Holy Mother Church.

Political Correctness should NEVER be considered in this…but for that matter, P/C should go the way of the DO-DO Bird.

I AGREE. Political correctedness should have nothing to do with the canonization of a saint as this correctedness is pretty subjective and changes every hundred or so years! My point though is that in fairness to the saint - who is human and subject to failure - I think it would be great if we - through the canonization process - contextualize the persons’s actions, views or writings, in lieu of what he or she was trying to do as well as his or her world view, time and place…if you know what i mean…the church after all in residentail schools, andmissions thought it was doing the right thing because of its narrow view of the truth and its denial that God can be and act outside of the church…thank God we came to that understanding in more recent times…

Back to you.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Political correctness? Political correctness should never be an issue in a cause of canonisation.

I doubt the Spanish Conquest (if I am reading the OP correctly) would be a huge detriment to any cause for her canonisation, because there was no way she could have been significantly engaged in the decision-making behind the colonisation efforts apart from simply sending people and supplies, as any contact between the Americas and Spain took months to span the Atlantic. Also, she was only alive to witness the first few years of the colonisation effort, while most of the so-called cultural genocide occurred well after her reign. Even if the monarchs were in any way behind them, the sins of her successors cannot be reflected upon herself.

However, I personally doubt Queen Isabella will be canonised. The standards for canonisation have become stricter over the past few centuries, and while Queen Isabella was an astute politician and a wise ruler, some of her decisions have been of dubious good, such as a war with a fellow Catholic state (Portugal) - although arguably done in self-defence - and the Alhambra Decree. Furthermore, we will need a lot more information on her holiness and devotion to God, because sainthood is not just about public actions but personal humility as well.

Filli Dei, thank you for that wonderfully and thought out response. I agree with your statemetns about “poltiical correctedness” as it is a relative term at the best. I did not know that about Isabella, so thank you for getting me up to speed on that…but I think that we need to understand the social, historical and cutlural contexts in which our saints of the past have acted…

I don’t agree with Catholic Answer writers who separate one’s action in the sacred and profane levels, we need to look at the person’s action and the message of canonization from a holistic perspective…

Thanks again

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Hmmm… yes and no. The Church recognizes some people as saints, not because only those individuals are saints, but because they have led exemplary lives and will serve as models who will inspire the faithful to greater holiness.

It makes sense for the Church to consider, in part, whether the life of an individual speaks to today’s Catholics. So paying special attention to individuals who are non-European, particularly those from under privileged classes, might be especially relevant. After all, the majority of Catholics, and the majority of growth in the Church, is in lesser developed nations.

As for Queen Isabella, I am not familiar with the details of her life. Certainly she may inspire some Catholics. If her selection offends some Catholics, is that reason to reject naming her as a saint? Or maybe delay naming her a saint? I dunno. I guess it would come down to the reasons for rejecting her, and whether there is a moral fault on her part.

Hi Dale. Thanks for the well thought out words re; the canonization process in general, it resonates with me. In terms of Isabella, Im not advocating one way or th eother…all I am saying is that her role as a monarch and her decisions about america need to be contextualized with respect to the thinking and world view of the day…I believe Benedict indicated somewherte that even though our history as Catholics in the inquisition as an example, sounds gawdd awful, if we were to look at the times, we would understand that the chruch tried to balance poltiical and economic realities of the day and the teachings of the church and of Jesus…

So, another writer made a wonderful defence of Isabella and I can see the logic in that arguement…so given that…I can say - as an Aboriginal person - the canonization may not be that bad to accept…accepting our saints is about the communion of saints, so the chruch in my mind has to promote that communion by promoting understanding between the saint’s time, place and cultrue, with the various cultures, thinking, etc. of our time…

Bruce

 

[PhilOSophia]

Would you tolerate the Muslims similarly saying that a “superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one” in their conquest of Jerusalem?

I would. They won. The crusaders lost. That’s war.

I am tired of the constant hand-wringing and whining about Western society.

If you want to destroy a society, its very economical to get its own members to do it for you. Political correctness is the Left, having lost the argument with Capitalism, trying to seek power by inflating a guilt complex.

 

[PhilOSophia]

Criteria for naming someone a saint:

They are dead;
The Church declares that they are in Heaven.

That’s it.

 

[trickster]

“Political Correctness” is evil. It is a philosophy that often hides or suppresses the truth.

AG…political correctedness is also a fluid process that gives voice to the marginalized of society through attempts on the part of the privileged to find ways in which to promote conversation in all parts of society…I think the opposite to a certain degree that PC is also a philosophy that challenges the often assumed aspects of the truth…a socio-cultural or even “class” understanding of the truth the church teaches us…(note; I am differentiating "Truth " form perceptions of “truth” held by many in the chruch…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

I suggest you read Isabel of Spain by Warren Carroll.

I also suggest some fact checking regarding the so-called “conquering” of indiginous peoples you attribute to her. Isabella died in 1504.

Good point 1ke! Math was never one of my strongest points…let alone counting! Another commentor made that point…I stand corrected…but the central question still stands…the role of canonization in “rewarding” certain historical realities…as opposed to honournig a saint’s spiritual life while understanding and contextualizing his or her decisions, actions and writigns in the context of his or her world at the time…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

On the flip side, the indigenous people were neither saints nor helpless victims. Long before the arrival of the Europeans they inflicted great pain on each other and ravaged each other through wars. From Mexico down to the tip of South America, the indigenous people were very sophisticated cultures. They were not savages, nor were they idiots. They knew how to scam, oppress, abuse, steal and destroy like the best Europeans. Having lived among them for 7 years I can testify to this. We have to give up this illusory image of the harmless and naive native who is the victim of the Europeans. Many holy Europeans lost their lives as the hands of barbaric natives.

We have to look at history with a balanced eye.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As always JR Reduction…thank you. I agree with everything you say…including the comments about our people prior to contact. You actually honour us when you say “very sophisticated cultures”…yeah I am not a “Noble Savage” groupeee…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Well sure, after we massacred most of the native peoples here - think wounded knee etc. I would like to think that would never happen again, but look at the attitudes toward illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, attitudes still prevalent toward Amerinds and African Americans. If we are going to err, let it be on the side of compassion.

Ohana…one thing to say “Amen”.

Bruce
Trickster

 

[trickster]

In this day and age, distrust between people over what happened multiple generations ago is understandable, but no excuse for the stupidity we see.

I can’t start giving my cousin the stink-eye because I found out my uncle punched my dad when they were kids over something dumb.

We are all family in a way, are we not?

I also find it hilarious when later generations want to blame outside forces for the total loss of their culture instead of blaming their ancestors who caved to the pressure or just realized a superior system to what they’d known. Heck, we choose the Church as individuals every time we step foot back into the sanctuary. Subsidiarity demands an investigation of the individual motive to submit to the highest point in the chain- you deem it true, do you not? If it’s true today, it was true then. If some rejected it then, they are not “more right” today though the rose-glass of nostalgic revisionism. Insulated cultures rarely last. Toilet paper wasn’t invented. Electricity? Forget it. The internet? Pffft.

Yeah, I could water the little stupid seed of hate for the English in regard to how they treated my Irish and Scottish ancestors. Of course, I’d also have to hate my English ancestors in the process. And where do the German and Norwegian ones fit in? The German ones would probably be demanding a strict system in which to hate the ancestors while the Norwegians would rather just be left alone while they eat weird things considered edible only in the throes of death by starvation by any American.

Most natives got glass beads for land is the meme. Well, God Bless the ones who were fortunate enough to have those beads come in the form of a Rosary.

Hi Daralhab…the issue is not whether we are angry about the past, it is more about today’s generation has not learned from the past…we are still doing the same thing over and over again…now it has to do with illegal immigrants…palestines intersest over israel’s etc…those in power are still engaged in a neo form of colonization that seems so normal that they cannot see the merit of the critizism that the likes of me renders…that’s all…

Cheerz.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

All that being said, for the last couple of days, I’ve had it in my head to make a breast plate using traditional native materials and have the design be the Chi Rho symbol we have come to know to and love.

I was obsessed with a few things as a kid: Native Americans, anything Jewish, and history. The synergy of my passions results in a really fun faith despite everyone trying to drag it down sometimes, of which I am sometimes(often ) the biggest enemy to my faith.

Got any tips, Trickster on such a artistic/practical endeavor? Feel free to PM “how-to instructions”. “How”-to instructions on something native… See, we can have fun and poke at each other in a manner which is only offensive if we let it be.

OK, you got me…I jumped too quickly in responding to the last posting…one of my most favourite memories is making a pipe…with I think red pipestone from somewhere in the Dakota’s or in Saskatchewan, not sure…but it was both a memorable and sacred moement and activitiy for me…I’ll definitely get in touch…

Cheerz

Bruce

 

[trickster]

I would. They won. The crusaders lost. That’s war.

I am tired of the constant hand-wringing and whining about Western society.

If you want to destroy a society, its very economical to get its own members to do it for you. Political correctness is the Left, having lost the argument with Capitalism, trying to seek power by inflating a guilt complex.

Does your church stand with you on the “hand-wringing” of western society when in fact it is critical of western society?

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Since this thread started with the question of the possible canonization of Queen Isabella, my issue with this revolves around the question of the “point” of naming someone a saint. Presumably this would include the idea that this person is being held up as an example to the faithful.

I just don’t “get” the inspirational value of holding up some royal figure who lived 500 years ago and whose life and challenges bears little to no resemblance to today’s challenges. Contemporary figures such as Ven. Solanus Casey, the Marine chaplain Fr. Capodanno, Thea Bowman – these are the kinds of figures and inspirational examples that the Church should be more aggressively considering.

Agreed!

BF

 

[trickster]

Criteria for naming someone a saint:

They are dead;
The Church declares that they are in Heaven.

That’s it.

Hmm…the “art of the possible”…

Bf

 

[Filii_Dei]

I would. They won. The crusaders lost. That’s war.

Let’s canonise Saladin then.