Syncretism, Paganism = Native American Spirituality - Yes or No?

[Ohana]

In thinking about many of the comments I have heard since starting my postings, there seems to be a Catholic world view that Native Spirituality is “New Age”, it is “paganism” and that any attempts to connect world views as a means of understanding the Catholic context are simply dismissed as sycretism. I obviously do not agree with these ideas…Native American spirituality stands on its own, it is not new age. Native Spirituality is concerned about right relationships (eco-theology) and does not worship things - so it is not pagan as understood thousands of years ago (and today I don’t think one will find a Hindi or pagan who believe that creation is the creator…so no, Native American indigneous thinkgin is not pagan…and finally to introduce sweet grass as an aboriginlal symbol for aspects of the mass is not - dare I say - syncretic…so my challenge is that I want fellow Catholics to re-think and accept the challenge of revisiting their assumptions about Native American spirituality and its conversation and meaning within a Catholic context…

Trickster (Aboriginal concept for transformational/conversion)
Bruce Ferguson (regular name

I think discussions of indigenous spirituality really bring up the realm of “natural law” as I learned it in Catechism. An inborn knowledge of right and wrong and a sense of something greater than us. As Catholics we have a rich history to provide a framework for that and we have Christ as our cornerstone/leader/savior. Over my life, a fairly long one, I have been fortunate enough to have had contact with a number of cultures and have always had an interest in and felt drawn to local spirituality. There are some I have encountered that seem very “authentic”. Most have a creation story, a sense of God _however He is called, a reverence for the departed in some way or another. Some I know lead people in the wrong direction, but others really lead people in “right paths.” The indian cultures of North and South America appear to embody some of these qualities. We can point out errors, but it may be more important to celebrate points of agreement. Most of all, we cannot put God in a box. He has touched his children all over the world, but sometimes not within our Jude-Christian language. Mother Church has accommodated these differences in a variet of ways, often including indigenous symbols and liturgical gestures within the Mass and other ceremonies. I hope we can be inclusive without diluting the message of Jesus. Keep this dialogue going!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You didn’t specify the west African slave trade. Over all the Arabic slave trade eclipses anything the Europeans did.

I’m not saying that fair and frank discussions should not be had. I’m simply saying that you cannot blame present day Germans for the Third Reich government. Nor can you blame so-and-so an American for the fact that his great-great-grandfather owned a plantation with slaves.

I’m not an American.

I had a lecture by a University Teacher speciatilist, who explained learly the difference between arabs taking slaves (sometimes temoporarily for debts) and INDUSTRIAL slave trade done by the British. Hever heard of the Triangle Slave Trade? Nauseating. If you say that equals that of the arabs, sorry, you did not study enough. Besides, there is a competition to know who was the baddest?

There is a Country, Nation, Coomon History for the good and for the bad. Nation means where you were born.

But you seem to defend well Americans…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes, that may be true in countries like South America, but I am talking about Canada mainly and as you know, “colonization” is only about 150 years old on Canada’s west coast and about 400 in the East. The Jesuits wrote quite a bit about the aboriginals they found and what they perceived as a belief. The Jesuit Relations were the “fundraising appeals of the day” back to Rome and they must be understood in relation to the French Jesuit and Gallic thinking of the day in Quebec. In the rest of Canada, Catholicism is not that old…150-200 years old…and most of the work amongst our peoples were done by the Oblates of Mary Immaclate…they made many uses of aboriginal tools to explain gospel concepts and including the creation of a written form of the languages…so I think that while the destruction of cultures in the south have been for 500+ years now with a different colonizer mindset then it is not reasonable to assume that our people have had our religion killed…

I am 54 as an example. My great grandmother was a medicine women. My grandmother was the first generation of our family to become Catholics in 1905 and then my mother…I am the third generation… Also my great grandmother by-passed my grandmother and taught my mother about what she knew…so this case - which I have just document for you - would argue that the traditional knowledge has survived at least until 1975 with the death of my mom…BUT … in the 70’s there was a great renewal of interest in all things aboriginal and how that worked within the church itself…

So, to argue that we - as a people - are simply constructing a lost past, does not always ring true. There is much more I can share on this…but I am limited in time by a library computer…but I thank you for your comments on other areas of colonialization…that would make sense…but we need to be sensitive of the particular histories of each group that we are talking about…there is nothing about me that is for the tourists…everything I say about Aboriginal people comes from being aboriginal and an aboriginal heart…so I say what I have to say … and enjoy the dynamics of these discussions…take care.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

Sorry, are you Indian?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I can’t follow some of this, and I won’t respond to most of it, except to say I think you need to do some more reading if you really think Apartheid was a particularly English thing or that the Spanish were just jumping at the chance to marry people of other races and form new nationalities, or that we Americans keep Indians in zoo-like reservations for tourists to take pictures of. Maybe also reread what I have actually written, which contains nothing of what you here have falsely accused me of believing.

Also I have no desire to impute modern Germans with the crimes of the Nazis, not even descendents of Nazi supporters, much less those not descended from them (those former Nazis or Nazi supporters still living do of course have that connection- same with former Klansmen in the US and whatnot). As I said, two could play this game, but I have no desire to do so.

I don’t know what your beef is with British and Americans, but I think it is affecting your judgment.

I did not understand what you said.
My view of the British.
I do not know why the practice apartheid everywhere.
I put the hypothesis that it was because most were Protestant. Protestant are special. They do not obey the Pope. They change morals at will, remember Henry the VIII, I would not like to have him as a Pope. So, they just changed doctrines to suit their needs. In the Protestant Forum where I am, someone explained to me: “You have a Catholic thought (on the obedience to the Pope)”. And then told me that one goes to a Church, if it does not please he goes to another and if it does not suit he may create one. So, pastors in South Africa and Mississipi could say that balck men had no souls and other barbarian things the pleased the churchgoers. If they did not say that thee pastor would be left with an empty church and no food in the table…
But the British have many good points: they are adaptable, very, very organized, hard working, put schools everywhere and many other good points.
I think every culture is a coin. two faces, one good, one bad.

 

[Kaben123]

I had a lecture by a University Teacher speciatilist, who explained learly the difference between arabs taking slaves (sometimes temoporarily for debts) and INDUSTRIAL slave trade done by the British. Hever heard of the Triangle Slave Trade? Nauseating. If you say that equals that of the arabs, sorry, you did not study enough. Besides, there is a competition to know who was the baddest?
.

What do you mean, what is the difference between arab slave trade and European slave trade? Over 1 million Europeans (Spaniards, britons etc.) were captured and sold into slavery by North African pirates (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans were forced to fight in the Ottoman Army as slaves (Janissaries etc.), many European women were forced to live in the Harems. The whole reason for why European slave trade could take place is because the African slave traders were there before Europeans came and sold slaves to NA and ME.

It seems to me that it is you who are defending the Middle eastern and North african slave trade (which still goes on today to some extent).

Off topic, but I was curious about what you meant.

 

[trickster]

I think discussions of indigenous spirituality really bring up the realm of “natural law” as I learned it in Catechism. An inborn knowledge of right and wrong and a sense of something greater than us. As Catholics we have a rich history to provide a framework for that and we have Christ as our cornerstone/leader/savior. Over my life, a fairly long one, I have been fortunate enough to have had contact with a number of cultures and have always had an interest in and felt drawn to local spirituality. There are some I have encountered that seem very “authentic”. Most have a creation story, a sense of God _however He is called, a reverence for the departed in some way or another. Some I know lead people in the wrong direction, but others really lead people in “right paths.” The indian cultures of North and South America appear to embody some of these qualities. We can point out errors, but it may be more important to celebrate points of agreement. Most of all, we cannot put God in a box. He has touched his children all over the world, but sometimes not within our Jude-Christian language. Mother Church has accommodated these differences in a variet of ways, often including indigenous symbols and liturgical gestures within the Mass and other ceremonies. I hope we can be inclusive without diluting the message of Jesus. Keep this dialogue going!

Ohana, that is most eloquently stated and I thank you and agree with you too.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Sorry, are you Indian?

Yes, that is why I post the questions on Catholic Answers that address the relationship and conversation happening between indigenous communities around the world and christianity within the Catholic concept…so the interest is not merely intellectual…it is also experiential and is a passion and a calling that I know the Creator has called me to…so I look forward to your thoughts on ideas and so forth, co carry on Pfaffenhoffen!

Bruce
Trickster

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes, that is why I post the questions on Catholic Answers that address the relationship and conversation happening between indigenous communities around the world and christianity within the Catholic concept…so the interest is not merely intellectual…it is also experiential and is a passion and a calling that I know the Creator has called me to…so I look forward to your thoughts on ideas and so forth, co carry on Pfaffenhoffen!

Bruce
Trickster

I am 1/4 Indian too. But from the real India !!! The Europeans were so smart that they could not give you a real name. Actually, you should not be called Indians but Americans !!! Incas !!! or whatsoever and the whites be called whatever you like BUT white for they are not whites, at least the English People
And 1/4 from another and 1/8 from another and so on.
So the interest is not merely intellectual…it is also experiential and is a passion and a calling that I know the Creator has called me to…so I look forward to your thoughts on ideas and so forth, co carry on trickster!

 

[FrancisB]

December is a good time to discuss this, I suppose. There’s the commemoration of St. Juan Diego, and Our Lady of Guadalupe, and now to-day the announcement that our Holy Father intends to canonise Bl. Kateri (that’s pronounced “gadelee” in Mohawk). Having been to celebrations for the commemoration of Bl. Kateri at her home shrine here in New York with the Mohawk Catholics coming, I’ve seen the intermingling of Mohawk tradition and Catholicism done in a respectful way, but I’m equally certain that this can be taken too far. It’s all a matter of how it is done.

Of course many European Americans will scream and holler at the thought of Native American culture manifesting itself in Catholicism. I’m sure part of the fear is the influx of new age “spirituality” as evidenced by the commercialised dream catchers and other objects found in malls across the country. These same people might well have forgotten how much of European pagan culture was subsumed into Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, for that matter). I don’t mean to suggest that doctrine has in any way been compromised by paganism–and this would be the thing against which we must guard the faith at all times and from all forms, whether they are European, American, or from any other part of the globe, or whether they are ancient or modern.

To see this, we need only look at things like All Saints’ Day (from the Celtic festival of Samhain (“sow-in” with “sow” sounding like a female pig) the use of Christmas trees (taken from the Germanic pagan Yule tradition-- and I bet you have one in your church) or the Greek pagan koliva used in Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox services for the dead. Beyond this, how many churches were built on top of ancient pagan holy sites all over the world. To this end, we already have Native American influence in the local churches in the Americas, most famously the holy Tepeyac Hill, sacred to the Aztecs, which has now become the site of the great shrine of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I doubt many of you would criticise Our Lady of Guadalupe, and yet the Aztecs were guilty of regular human sacrifice.

I think the important thing is to look at whether the things that are being brought over into the mass are substantially pagan in mindset or merely the cultural trappings of a pagan culture. The one will cause doctrinal error, which is not acceptable. The other has been going on since the church first became the church of the gentiles.

At that, I think it might be healthy for those of us American Catholics that are not part Native American to get in touch with the ancient culture of this land and especially to explore the influence of the North American martyrs and their Native American companions on the local church.

 

[Ohana]

[and the whites be called whatever you like **BUT white for they are not whites, at least the English People.

**********************8
Had a fleeting memory as I read the above. When our sons were small, it was the period of trying to deal with the racism in the United States. They heard my husband and I discussing developments quite regularly, and the words “black” and “white” came up a lot. On of them said, “Mom, What are we?” and I said well we might be called white but the other name is Caucasian. OK, not concrete enough. He said triumphantly, “No we are not! We are peach!” and pulled out the peach crayon to show me. Since then I have always thought of myself as one of the peach people!

 

[trickster]

I am 1/4 Indian too. But from the real India !!! The Europeans were so smart that they could not give you a real name. Actually, you should not be called Indians but Americans !!! Incas !!! or whatsoever and the whites be called whatever you like BUT white for they are not whites, at least the English People
And 1/4 from another and 1/8 from another and so on.
So the interest is not merely intellectual…it is also experiential and is a passion and a calling that I know the Creator has called me to…so I look forward to your thoughts on ideas and so forth, co carry on trickster!

Awesome! And you are correct about “Indians” and “Native Americans”. In British Columbia, Canada, we have a large population of Indo-Canadians from India and we often laugh with each other how Columbus could of got us mixed up…we know he was looking for “Indians” but he found us instead…perhaps he should of prayed more to St. Christopher for directions to Indian not North America…

Cheerz
Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

December is a good time to discuss this, I suppose. There’s the commemoration of St. Juan Diego, and Our Lady of Guadalupe, and now to-day the announcement that our Holy Father intends to canonise Bl. Kateri (that’s pronounced “gadelee” in Mohawk). Having been to celebrations for the commemoration of Bl. Kateri at her home shrine here in New York with the Mohawk Catholics coming, I’ve seen the intermingling of Mohawk tradition and Catholicism done in a respectful way, but I’m equally certain that this can be taken too far. It’s all a matter of how it is done.

Of course many European Americans will scream and holler at the thought of Native American culture manifesting itself in Catholicism. I’m sure part of the fear is the influx of new age “spirituality” as evidenced by the commercialised dream catchers and other objects found in malls across the country. These same people might well have forgotten how much of European pagan culture was subsumed into Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, for that matter). I don’t mean to suggest that doctrine has in any way been compromised by paganism–and this would be the thing against which we must guard the faith at all times and from all forms, whether they are European, American, or from any other part of the globe, or whether they are ancient or modern.

To see this, we need only look at things like All Saints’ Day (from the Celtic festival of Samhain (“sow-in” with “sow” sounding like a female pig) the use of Christmas trees (taken from the Germanic pagan Yule tradition-- and I bet you have one in your church) or the Greek pagan koliva used in Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox services for the dead. Beyond this, how many churches were built on top of ancient pagan holy sites all over the world. To this end, we already have Native American influence in the local churches in the Americas, most famously the holy Tepeyac Hill, sacred to the Aztecs, which has now become the site of the great shrine of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I doubt many of you would criticise Our Lady of Guadalupe, and yet the Aztecs were guilty of regular human sacrifice.

I think the important thing is to look at whether the things that are being brought over into the mass are substantially pagan in mindset or merely the cultural trappings of a pagan culture. The one will cause doctrinal error, which is not acceptable. The other has been going on since the church first became the church of the gentiles.

At that, I think it might be healthy for those of us American Catholics that are not part Native American to get in touch with the ancient culture of this land and especially to explore the influence of the North American martyrs and their Native American companions on the local church.

Francis B…thank you SO much…that is one of the most well thought out, balanced and informed postings I have seen. I continue to be amazed at how often I have to explain to people that Native American does not equal New Age or Pagan…that is why I made this posting. Many Catholics as one other commentator noted have not done their homework and made statements on an assumption about pagans.

Greek philosophy and the early pagan inculturation does not influence the teachings of the church, these things have been called into service as TOOLS for evangelization of the pagan in 400 AD through the Celts in 600AD and throughout history. Catholicism assumes the worship of the whole person (heart, soul, community and culture) and only then is our worship authentic to Jesus. This is why the idea of exploring how to incorporate our spiritual and other traditions into our Catholicism is so important.

The beauty of Catholic Answers is that I have been challenged to clarify myself more and more and through that my ideas have developed tremendously. I emphasise more these days that the native cultural and spiritual stuff only explain the mass to an aboriginal audience they don’t change the mass…and that is what people seem to be worried about…

So thank you for your “breath of fresh air”…blessings.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster.

 

[trickster]

[and the whites be called whatever you like **BUT white for they are not whites

, at least the English People.

**********************8
Had a fleeting memory as I read the above. When our sons were small, it was the period of trying to deal with the racism in the United States. They heard my husband and I discussing developments quite regularly, and the words “black” and “white” came up a lot. On of them said, “Mom, What are we?” and I said well we might be called white but the other name is Caucasian. OK, not concrete enough. He said triumphantly, “No we are not! We are peach!” and pulled out the peach crayon to show me. Since then I have always thought of myself as one of the peach people!

Ohana, isn’t that quite an interesting concept…how old was your son when he pronounced that? I know that there are many terms as “apples” for those Native Americans who are Native but support and/or think like the dominant system…and to move that from apple to peach…it has potential…I think it would be a good title for a book

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

What do you mean, what is the difference between arab slave trade and European slave trade? Over 1 million Europeans (Spaniards, britons etc.) were captured and sold into slavery by North African pirates (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans were forced to fight in the Ottoman Army as slaves (Janissaries etc.), many European women were forced to live in the Harems. The whole reason for why European slave trade could take place is because the African slave traders were there before Europeans came and sold slaves to NA and ME.

It seems to me that it is you who are defending the Middle eastern and North african slave trade (which still goes on today to some extent).

Off topic, but I was curious about what you meant.

Never heard of those 1 million spaniards and britons captured by North African Pirates. Do you believe that? Where were they? In the Mediterraneum? Well, if you say so, I must investigate.
I am not defending the Muslims. Just to tell you, the North Africa was totally Christian and was captured by the Muslims. Your story of the Janissaries is true. The rapes were true. Do you know that 400 years after, in the recent Yogoslavia war, the christians avenged thoses rapes raping thousands of Muslins women? So much is the collective conscience.

I am ready do give you reason. I must re-write and re-think what I heard. I think the Teacher was talking about the conditions of slavery AMONGST BLACKS, not in relation to arabs.
But no arab slavery can justify this:
Just look at this:
~http://nigerianwiki.com/images/8/8a/Slave_storage.jpg
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/mid..._Facts_History_Slavery_files/slave-ship-2.jpg
http://negroartist.com/Slave Ships .../Punishment Aboard a Slave Ship, 1792_jpg.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[trickster]

Yes Pfafflen, truth is truth… thanks for sharing…

Bruce

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The Arabic people would like to disagree with you there. And on another note, you’re speaking as if the Europeans and Euro-Americans of today are personally responsible for what our ancestors did.

Either you assume the glories and black spots of the past
or
you do not assume the black spots BUT DO NOT ASSUME THE GLORIES, say the defeat of Nazis, and so on…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes, that may be true in countries like South America, but I am talking about Canada mainly and as you know, “colonization” is only about 150 years old on Canada’s west coast and about 400 in the East. The Jesuits wrote quite a bit about the aboriginals they found and what they perceived as a belief. The Jesuit Relations were the “fundraising appeals of the day” back to Rome and they must be understood in relation to the French Jesuit and Gallic thinking of the day in Quebec. In the rest of Canada, Catholicism is not that old…150-200 years old…and most of the work amongst our peoples were done by the Oblates of Mary Immaclate…they made many uses of aboriginal tools to explain gospel concepts and including the creation of a written form of the languages…so I think that while the destruction of cultures in the south have been for 500+ years now with a different colonizer mindset then it is not reasonable to assume that our people have had our religion killed…

I am 54 as an example. My great grandmother was a medicine women. My grandmother was the first generation of our family to become Catholics in 1905 and then my mother…I am the third generation… Also my great grandmother by-passed my grandmother and taught my mother about what she knew…so this case - which I have just document for you - would argue that the traditional knowledge has survived at least until 1975 with the death of my mom…BUT … in the 70’s there was a great renewal of interest in all things aboriginal and how that worked within the church itself…

So, to argue that we - as a people - are simply constructing a lost past, does not always ring true. There is much more I can share on this…but I am limited in time by a library computer…but I thank you for your comments on other areas of colonialization…that would make sense…but we need to be sensitive of the particular histories of each group that we are talking about…there is nothing about me that is for the tourists…everything I say about Aboriginal people comes from being aboriginal and an aboriginal heart…so I say what I have to say … and enjoy the dynamics of these discussions…take care.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

BIG QUESTION:
were the Protestant more racist than the Catholic?
were the Catholic more racist than the Protestant?
were BOTH as racists as the others?

my ignorant guess:
I guess and bet the Catholic were less racists than the Protestant. I have several reason to bet on that but I wanted to hear people who have a knowledge of both situations.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I can’t follow some of this, and I won’t respond to most of it, except to say I think you need to do some more reading if you really think Apartheid was a particularly English thing or that the Spanish were just jumping at the chance to marry people of other races and form new nationalities, or that we Americans keep Indians in zoo-like reservations for tourists to take pictures of. Maybe also reread what I have actually written, which contains nothing of what you here have falsely accused me of believing.

Also I have no desire to impute modern Germans with the crimes of the Nazis, not even descendents of Nazi supporters, much less those not descended from them (those former Nazis or Nazi supporters still living do of course have that connection- same with former Klansmen in the US and whatnot). As I said, two could play this game, but I have no desire to do so.

I don’t know what your beef is with British and Americans, but I think it is affecting your judgment.

The British have great qualities, right? 1. extremely well organized (when there is a NATO drill, it is up to the British the administration); 2. hard-working; 3. adventurous; 4. with a good sense of humour and self-humor; 4. good scientists; 5. Commonwealth Organization; 6. excellent de-colonization (is it enough? I can go on and on and on…)

1.The British and American are not perfect, right?
The British and American had sins like any other people, right?
The American and British have black spots in their past like ANY OTHER PEOPLE, right?
The horrible treatment of aboriginal people in general (the British) and of Blacks (the British and Americans) is one of the black spots, right?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Awesome! And you are correct about “Indians” and “Native Americans”. In British Columbia, Canada, we have a large population of Indo-Canadians from India and we often laugh with each other how Columbus could of got us mixed up…we know he was looking for “Indians” but he found us instead…perhaps he should of prayed more to St. Christopher for directions to Indian not North America…

Cheerz
Bruce Ferguson

:thumbsup:

 

[FrancisB]

BIG QUESTION:
were the Protestant more racist than the Catholic?
were the Catholic more racist than the Protestant?
were BOTH as racists as the others?

my ignorant guess:
I guess and bet the Catholic were less racists than the Protestant. I have several reason to bet on that but I wanted to hear people who have a knowledge of both situations.

How do you measure that? The Spaniards kept slaves; they subjugated the native population. In many ways they treated the Aztecs and the Incas in a similar manner as they had the Moors and the Jews in their native Spain: first war and forced conversion, then persecution through an inquisition to make sure they were “really” Catholic because they were worried that they hadn’t completely rid the natives of their pagan beliefs.

The French were perhaps better in some sense, since they didn’t try to kill and subjugate the natives for no reason, but they had no problem lying to them and swindling them, much like the Protestant Dutch that lived nearby in New Amsterdam (York) and English in New England. That’s not to say there wasn’t fighting because there was plenty. The Dutch didn’t own slaves, but the French and English did. And they used the natives as armies to fight their wars but then didn’t treat them like allies after the victory (q.v. the French and Indian War).

But then if one looks at the lives of certain Catholics, a different picture emerges. It was some of the Franciscan Friars in New Spain (Mexico) that developed the concept of International Law and the basic underpinnings of human rights based on the way they thought the Aztecs, Maya, and other native groups in Mexico should be treated. Without them, we couldn’t have this discussion now.

All that acknowledged, the people that were fighting to keep slavery alive in the US were largely Protestant, and most Catholics were Union supporters, but then most Catholics lived in the parts of the country that stayed with the Union. Does that make them less racist? I don’t know.

When the Irish, Italians, and Polish came later, they were definitely relegated to the bottom of the social strata, and worked alongside other races for a time, but refused to intermingle. Was it because the other groups were not ethnically the same or because they were not Catholic? (i.e. was it racism or the difference of religion that kept them separate?) I’m not sure. The mixed-marriages suggest that there is some of both at play: there were plenty of mixed-ethnic Catholic marriages happening in the 1930s and 40s here, so maybe it was just the religious barrier, but then there were many more Catholics marrying European-American Protestants than African-American or Native American ones, so I’m not sure that the race barrier wasn’t just as real.

These were different times. You cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. It isn’t fair. The Spanish did very little to the natives that the natives didn’t do to each other: in fact the specific groups that they encountered used ritual human sacrifice as part of their pagan faith. They fought wars with one another for no other reason than to shed blood for their gods. I’m not being disparaging to these groups; this is historical fact. The Africans sold each other into slavery, so the Europeans buying African slaves from other Africans doesn’t make them the more culpable. The Europeans were every bit as bad as people make them out to be; the problem is that all of the other “persecuted” groups in play were equally as responsible for doing bad things to their neighbouring tribes. We as humans have progressed beyond this, but when we look back at how the Europeans came to rule the world, we forget that they weren’t worse behaved than the other groups; they were just better armed.

What I think we can say is that Catholicism helped to shape the world view that we now have that there is such a thing as universal human dignity. That’s vitally important. You can see Catholics at the forefront of many of these important advances in human dignity. Yet you can still see from this thread that when it comes to native culture, some Catholics are perfectly accepting of faux-Celtic spirituality, while still nervous about anything Native American.