G
- Status
D
Daralharb
Guest
It also has to be understood that those neat drawings we see that explain crazily complex philosophical concepts, which are what allow us to understand the theological concept, i.e. the below, were used extensively by missionaries until a good grasp of each other’s language was had to discuss the concepts in a fully spoken manner.
Many native people readily understood such concepts already, but the language barrier resulted in an issue. Enter symbolism and the equivalent of toddler talk:
One can easily become attached to a romantic portrayal, or a rose-colored view, of a culture.
It is now politically correct to be historically incorrect.
People who legitimately think the various tribes were somehow in harmony with each other are either willful idiots or just ignorant. In a broad culture steeped in honor, certain moral principles were largely ignored in lieu of ego being front and center.
Slavery, human sacrifice, etc- can all be claimed by most, many, or some tribes.
Would I rather be stuck in some pagan Druid cult? Nah. I’m very glad my ancestors met the early missionaries to what is now Germany, Scandinavia, and the British Isles. Are there some cool things about those cultures I can appreciate? Sure. Do I really care that I don’t get to experience the “thrill” of an evil human sacrifice when the sun or moon is right in the sky? No, I’m quite good without it, thanks.
Many native people readily understood such concepts already, but the language barrier resulted in an issue. Enter symbolism and the equivalent of toddler talk:
One can easily become attached to a romantic portrayal, or a rose-colored view, of a culture.
It is now politically correct to be historically incorrect.
People who legitimately think the various tribes were somehow in harmony with each other are either willful idiots or just ignorant. In a broad culture steeped in honor, certain moral principles were largely ignored in lieu of ego being front and center.
Slavery, human sacrifice, etc- can all be claimed by most, many, or some tribes.
Would I rather be stuck in some pagan Druid cult? Nah. I’m very glad my ancestors met the early missionaries to what is now Germany, Scandinavia, and the British Isles. Are there some cool things about those cultures I can appreciate? Sure. Do I really care that I don’t get to experience the “thrill” of an evil human sacrifice when the sun or moon is right in the sky? No, I’m quite good without it, thanks.
S
seekerz
Guest
Really? You have no idea how offensive that sounds to descendants of those brutalised. How ever did the early Christians manage to spread the Gospel without enslaving and torturing people, I wonder? The end never justifies the means.
R
revert_jen
Guest
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that should be Castillian, meaning (roughly) the Spanish spoken in much of Spain, rather than castellan, which (if I recall correctly) is a person who is in charge of a castle, and which makes the whole idea of an exchange of tongues sound much less figurative and much more yukky. (You mail me yours, and I’ll mail you mine. Send it c/o the castle!)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
–Jen
R
revert_jen
Guest
Just a thought… maybe if you trust the Church first, and don’t get offended unless you have already done research and found out that there is something to be offended about? It’s just a mindset that says, “Joe in the pub (or even my PC-laden history teacher) said that X was a bad dude, and here the Church is, thinking of canonizing him! The Church must be wrong.” It’s probably not a helpful mindset.
In addition, all saints, except the Blessed Virgin, are also sinners. Nobody is going to claim that, for example, the early part of St. Augustine of Hippo’s life is something the Church has ever held up for emulation. It is important to read what the Church has to say about a saint.
Besides that, absolutely no saint has ever been infallible. Errors in judgement, even about something important, are not in themselves sinful. (Thank goodness, because I make 'em all the time!)–Jen
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to tread gently here. When St. Maximilian Kolbe returned from the missions in Japan and India, he wrote a lengthy theological treatise that he sent to the General Minister of the Conventual Franciscans in which he berated the fact that the Catholic missionaries had sinned against the native cultures to bring the Gospel. He pointed out that the Gospel does not belong to the Europeans nor is the Church European. He said that God had allowed each culture to evolve, because it has a place in his plan of salvation and to destroy it with the excuse of bringing the Gospel is unjustifiable.
This letter was, which was quite lengthy, coming from one of the most brilliant scientists and theologians of that time was taken very seriously, especially because St. Max had proven his point by adapting the title of the Immaculate Conception to The Sinless One in Japan and by adapting the dress and life of the Conventual Friars. To this day, they have a militia of the Immaculate in Japan and over 800 Japanese Conventual Franciscans who look nothing like the Franciscans that you would find in Europe or America, but live the same rule.
The general superior passed this on to the Holy See. Pope Pius XII loved it. When he died, Pope John XXIII picked up on it and he introduced it into Vatican II and many parts of Maximilian Kolbe’s writing are in the Council’s decrees on mission and culture. The pastoral approach must be to evangelize using the culture, not in conflict with the culture, because the culture is part of God’s plan.
You want to replace those parts of the culture that are obstacles to the Gospel, without destroying the culture. It’s not an either/or situation. St. Maximilian taught that it’s a culture and faith situation. Pope Benedict follows the same line of thinking. Culture and faith must go hand in hand. Neither can be sacrificed for the other. We must care about both.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I would say the Church, having created Western Society, may critique it encouragingly, but leftists critique it destructively. I would say the Church prefers the atmosphere in Western Christian, capitalist societies than it does in communist, atheist, pagan, or socialist ones.
What’s happening now is that a dunderheaded, pseudo-educated, left-leaning consensus, picking up ideas by osmosis, is groping its way, not to a New Enlightenment, but a darkening of the mind.
All the old sins are coming back and the old gods with them. A great pity.
Aside: You see, the Devil loves a man who thinks he’s clever. By tempting him with forbidden knowledge, half-truths and lies, he can get him to do the most noxious things, and bit-by-bit damn him. E.g. the ‘liberation’ of sex.
You’ll certainly find clergy who’ve got the eco-tolerance-for-peace-and-justice bug. You’ll find them in bare churches with dwindling congregations, wondering why no one comes to confession.
T
trickster
Guest
Not going there Jen…thanks for the support on that particular commentary … about the Castelan tongue… Cheerz.Yeah, I’m pretty sure that should be Castillian, meaning (roughly) the Spanish spoken in much of Spain, rather than castellan, which (if I recall correctly) is a person who is in charge of a castle, and which makes the whole idea of an exchange of tongues sound much less figurative and much more yukky. (You mail me yours, and I’ll mail you mine. Send it c/o the castle!)
–Jen
Bruce
T
trickster
Guest
I agree. I would point out to anthropological studies of Boas and others of the first generation in anthropology. Keep in mind that they used words such as “slaves” when talking about the interaction between competing groups of Aboriginal pepole (i. Haida and Kwakuitl)…but the “slave” word in English was the closest they could come to the actual practice. The actual “slave” held by Aboriginal was by no means as brutal as what Europeans did with Africans.
In terms of Druids, and I don’t know too much about them…why would you reject them? If they are part of your legacy, why would you not embrace and learn more about who they were? Your “dramatization” of ritual kind of departs from the central point of this discussion , but it is entertaining reading…
Bruce
Trickste r(Aboriginal symbol of transformation)>
T
trickster
Guest
Hi Jen. I don’t think the two concepts are mutually exclusive: trusting the church and being offended as a native person. I appreciate being updated on what you put forward last time…that has been acknowledged by me. However, what I speak of is a widely held view within the aboriginal community at large. There is a political aspect to the canonization process, the church is only too aware of that…but why doesn’t the church contextualize the saints canonization within the mistakes he or she made…that would do a great good…in promoting the church’s message in the selection of the saint, by putting off what the canonization DOES NOT endorse…i.e. Augustine’s rather interesting early days…that’s kind of where I was going generally in this…Just a thought… maybe if you trust the Church first, and don’t get offended unless you have already done research and found out that there is something to be offended about? It’s just a mindset that says, “Joe in the pub (or even my PC-laden history teacher) said that X was a bad dude, and here the Church is, thinking of canonizing him! The Church must be wrong.” It’s probably not a helpful mindset.
In addition, all saints, except the Blessed Virgin, are also sinners. Nobody is going to claim that, for example, the early part of St. Augustine of Hippo’s life is something the Church has ever held up for emulation. It is important to read what the Church has to say about a saint.
–Jen
Cheerz.
Bruce
T
trickster
Guest
I meant by “putting out” rather than “putting off”…sorry
BF
BF
T
trickster
Guest
Wow, thank you JReduction…I will look up Kolbe…that is fantastic that he would say that…
Bruce
Trickster
Bruce
Trickster
J
JReducation
Guest
A good source for many of his thoughts on mission and other subjects as well as his personal holiness is a book called, Forget Not Love.
He wrote many letters and he was also a publisher of a Catholic newspaper and magazine, one of the first in the world. But the Nazis destroyed whatever they found in his friary when they invaded it. They hated him because he denounced the treatment of the Jews. They wanted to make him disappear off the map. After they killed him, they cremated him rather than bury him. They ordered that his ashes be scattered all over the region so that there would be no trace of him. But he lives on in the life of the Church and that of his brothers.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
trickster
Guest
He has been canonized, right? Or it seems that JP II wanted to raise his life to us…not from a distant past when it seemed more gallant to be Catholic, but to be Catholic in a very fluid, grey and uncertain time in our recent history…I will look that book up in our library…thanks again.
Bruce
Bruce
R
revert_jen
Guest
Certainly I agree with you. My point was that you were offended before finding out the facts, rather than checking to see whether there was any cause first. For example, there could be two different reactions to hearing that the Church was considering canonizing someone you considered responsible for terrible things done against aboriginal people.
Reaction 1: I hope they don’t, because that would be offensive.
Reaction 2: Why would the Church consider canonizing someone like that? Maybe I need to look into her life, in case what I “know” about her is wrong.
Everybody “knows” lots of stuff that isn’t in fact true. I’m sure I do. But before assuming that the Church is considering doing something offensive, check out the facts a bit first. Then if you decide there is actually something to be offended about (as it turned out there really wasn’t in this case), then feel free to be offended by it.
Just as a practical consideration, how would you suggest that the Church do that? I mean, as she hasn’t even been beatified, much less canonized, I’m not sure how that should work. I believe that whenever a canonization is announced, the Church does announce what it is about the person that the Church thinks is particularly holy and so forth. I imagine the Church probably has made a statement or two about her, although probably more in connection with Jewish people than with aboriginal people. What exactly is missing?
–Jen
P
PhilOSophia
Guest
The Church canonises people who have a following, who will pay for the expense of the canonisation process i.e. the examination. AFAIK, other criteria is whether they have led an exemplary life from the moment of conversion to the faith and whether their lives are instructive and inspirational for the faithful. And the requisite miracles.
I doubt Queen Isabella would qualify on those grounds. I don’t think she has a cult, for a start.
Tribal peoples tend toward devil worship, warfare and autocratic rule. Their gods do evil things. Someone on this forum once said “There are no happy pagan families”. This is a hypothesis I would test if I had more time but I think that if your gods are devils then it’s like dealing with the mafia: you get some protection but they do you over in other ways.
**
I also think its a good idea not to confuse the Church with the State in its relationship with pagan peoples. The State wanted their wealth while the Church wanted to save their souls.**
I doubt Queen Isabella would qualify on those grounds. I don’t think she has a cult, for a start.
Tribal peoples tend toward devil worship, warfare and autocratic rule. Their gods do evil things. Someone on this forum once said “There are no happy pagan families”. This is a hypothesis I would test if I had more time but I think that if your gods are devils then it’s like dealing with the mafia: you get some protection but they do you over in other ways.
**
I also think its a good idea not to confuse the Church with the State in its relationship with pagan peoples. The State wanted their wealth while the Church wanted to save their souls.**
T
trickster
Guest
C’mon Roger, would you say that when Paul VI said that we have no food shortage problem that we have a distribution problem is not critical of the western world? Or when JP II warned Poland not to fall into the traps of capitalism? You have a point though…do you think it would be fair to argue that the contemporary world has in fact negated the “western civilization” created by the church…cause as you know probably more better than me, is that the church created international law and that law was about balancing rights…but I think that you know where - basically - I am going with my statements…
Bruce
T
trickster
Guest
Hi Jen, we stand in agreement on your first point… a little bit of fact checking goes a long wayCertainly I agree with you. My point was that you were offended before finding out the facts, rather than checking to see whether there was any cause first. For example, there could be two different reactions to hearing that the Church was considering canonizing someone you considered responsible for terrible things done against aboriginal people.
Reaction 1: I hope they don’t, because that would be offensive.
Reaction 2: Why would the Church consider canonizing someone like that? Maybe I need to look into her life, in case what I “know” about her is wrong.
Everybody “knows” lots of stuff that isn’t in fact true. I’m sure I do. But before assuming that the Church is considering doing something offensive, check out the facts a bit first. Then if you decide there is actually something to be offended about (as it turned out there really wasn’t in this case), then feel free to be offended by it.
Just as a practical consideration, how would you suggest that the Church do that? I mean, as she hasn’t even been beatified, much less canonized, I’m not sure how that should work. I believe that whenever a canonization is announced, the Church does announce what it is about the person that the Church thinks is particularly holy and so forth. I imagine the Church probably has made a statement or two about her, although probably more in connection with Jewish people than with aboriginal people. What exactly is missing?
–Jen
On the second point…I am not sure…that is exactly why I am asking that…certainly there are sensitivities in all canonization “appointments”…so we are not that far apart…
Bruce
T
trickster
Guest
WOW, there is no response to such ignorance Philosophia! I am floored that there are still people who have the mindset of the middle ages…I have to tell you something…your church and I (who is Catholic) have moved way beyond that ignorance…in many cases, the church cow-towed to the state as in the Gallican Church in New France as an example…so I would also be wary of those ideas. I did not realize there was any expense for canonization…could you elaborate on that…you have my interest on that particular point…
Bruce
- Status