The Church Collaborates in Its Own Destruction

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see none of these things leading to the destruction of the Catholic Church. So some statues are damaged or removed. Who really cares? Some people don’t see Fr Juniper as a kindly saint but the representative of an oppressive culture. Was the early colonization of the America’s oppressive? I think so.

Do Black lives matter? I think so.

is there system racism in police departments? I think so.
 
The Church cannot destroy itself, nor can it be destroyed. We often forget the promise Jesus made to Peter!

Of course it can be challenged, rocked, beaten, bloodied and some of its members martyred. But destroyed? If it is we may as well throw out our Bibles. They wouldn’t be worth the paper they’re printed on.
 
As a matter of interest, here is Bishop Barron on the canonization of Junipero Serra.

 
vsedriver said:
Was the early colonization of the America’s oppressive? I think so.
Click to expand...
No matter who visited whose land, the coming of Eurasian diseases to the Americas was inevitable. Disease, and not weapons, is what brought down the Indian societies, mostly below our border.

But I think we ought to really consider the layers of meaning behind Our Lady of Guadalupe. Even a lot of protestant Mexicans revere her, and one of the reasons is that she’s considered the savior of “la raza” “the race”; the Mestizos who constitute the great majority of the Mexican population. She is Indio or Mestizo herself, in appearance. She is shown as the suppressor of Quetzalcoatl, a “white” demonic figure (also represented as a snake) who Aztec religion predicted would wipe out their race enitrely. She represented hope even in the plagues. And, indeed, “la raza” survived and prospered. Some scholars say Juan Diego’s words were misunderstood; that our lady referred to herself not as our Lady of Guadalupe, but “Coatlashupe”, meaning the destroyer of Quetzalcoatl.

Again, the plagues were due to contact, and would have been just as bad if some African boat had landed in the Americas, or some Japanese boat had visited Oregon, or even if some Mayan boat had landed on the shores of Africa and returned. A non-Christian “deity” would have condemned them all. But Our Lady had mercy and adopted them as her own.

One should not be so quick to condemn an entire race (white) or culture (western Christian) when there is so much more to know.
 
Ridgerunner said:
One should not be so quick to condemn an entire race (white) or culture (western Christian) when there is so much more to know.
Click to expand...
that isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying that the colonization of the Americas was oppressive. There is no doubt that it was. The society as a whole did not treat native people well. Outside of passing on the faith and aid given by the church these people were not allowed to assimilate or take part in their own country’s development or advancement. They were excluded from land ownership, politics, finance, and a whole host of other restrictions based solely on their ethnic background.

Western culture has noble values but they were applied only to the white race in almost all circumstances. It was practiced as a double standard.
 
I really can’t agree with most of this.

The “society as a whole” was not a unity. There were many societies in the Americas. Some were oppressive to the some of the natives (but not others) and some weren’t. Some benefited immediately from white settlement, being relieved from severe oppression by their native neighbors.

Many were “allowed to assimilate”. They were not barred as individuals from owning land, entering politics or finance. As tribes, their rights to own land was limited.

It’s helpful to realize that western society was tribal for a long time, and it was a mess. The Church deliberately did things to break up the European tribes. One of them was to have strict rules barring close consanguinity and affinity, so it was almost impossible to marry within one’s own tribe.
 
Last edited:
vsedriver . . .
I’m saying that the colonization of the Americas was oppressive. There is no doubt that it was. The society as a whole did not treat native people well.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Many of the Europeans brought Jesus Christ here (in the Blessed Sacrament - the Catholic priests) and many of the laity eventually married the locals.

Typical Mexican people are frequently of Spanish (as in European Spain) and native Mexican Indian heritage.

Yes there are always exceptions but that works both ways.
I see none of these things leading to the destruction of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The Church can be destroyed in a local sense (see the Church of Laodicea in the book of Revelation for example).

Yes the Church as a whole cannot be destroyed.

vsedriver . . .
So some statues are damaged or removed. Who really cares?
Click to expand...
I care.

Would you care about the profanation of sacred Temple vessels of even the Old Covenant Temple? (The prophet Daniel would say such profanation is not OK).

Or do you think that is OK?

Why would you think profaning statues of New Covenant Saints is OK?
CCC 2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions,
as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God.
Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.52
Click to expand...
Bold of “things” mine.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Typical Mexican people are frequently of Spanish (as in European Spain) and native Mexican Indian heritage.
Click to expand...
and they kept the old social structure they brought with them. No native blood at the top of the list, mixed next, and pure native at the bottom. So yes, they were oppressive.
Cathoholic said:
Would you care about the profanation of sacred Temple vessels of even the Old Covenant Temple? (The prophet Daniel would say such profanation is not OK)
Click to expand...
God doesn’t dwell in our statues. It’s a statue. I never said damaging statues was OK. It is still vandalism. However, it’s not something I’m willing to die on the sword for. Is it sacrilege if you don’t believe that a statue is a holy object? Is it sacrilege if you believe the statue represents the oppression of minorities?
 
Ridgerunner said:
There were many societies in the Americas.
Click to expand...
which societies assisted natives in becoming land owners, political leaders, financial leaders Etc? Let’s face it, if it had value the natives lost control of it.
Ridgerunner said:
Some benefited immediately from white settlement, being relieved from severe oppression by their native neighbors.
Click to expand...
so they traded ‘severe’ oppression for ‘less severe’ oppression. Well, I guess you could say that is a step up.
Ridgerunner said:
Many were “allowed to assimilate”. They were not barred as individuals from owning land, entering politics or finance. As tribes, their rights to own land was limited.
Click to expand...
really? never heard of ‘redlining’? how many native American financiers can you name? or politicians? or do you believe they just didn’t want to pursue those kinds of careers? what about the extreme poverty on Indian reservations? after all, if they could assimilate why didn’t they do that? Maybe assimilation wasn’t as easy as you think?
Ridgerunner said:
The Church deliberately did things to break up the European tribes.
Click to expand...
this is a non sequitur
 
vsedriver said:
which societies assisted natives in becoming land owners, political leaders, financial leaders Etc? Let’s face it, if it had value the natives lost control of it.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that any society other than the Quakers, Catholic missionary groups and Congregationalists. Dartmouth was specifically founded for the purpose of educating Indians, and I think they can still attend for free.

While providing reservations is thought of as worthless, it was still land. The Osage are quite well off because of the location of their land. And Indians were not prevented as individuals from owning land. Tribal ownership was just not a European way of owning land, though the government allowed it only in the case of the Indians.
vsedriver said:
never heard of ‘redlining’? how many native American financiers can you name? or politicians? or do you believe they just didn’t want to pursue those kinds of careers?
Click to expand...
I already provided you with a list of Indian congressmen and senators. Some were in congress practically from the beginning. But here it is again.

List of Native Americans in the United States Congress - Wikipedia.
vsedriver said:
what about the extreme poverty on Indian reservations? after all, if they could assimilate why didn’t they do that? Maybe assimilation wasn’t as easy as you think?
Click to expand...
I think there are failures, but not on all of them. A priest I knew well served on the Standing Rock reservation for many years, and told me about the conditions there. Despite government support, the social conditions are terrible, with a lot of alcoholism, drug abuse, unwed parenthood and crime.

Why don’t they leave? It’s like a lot of government 'welfare". When it’s there, people are reluctant to leave it and seek their fortune in the larger society. Except for some tribes, like the Osage, the Cherokee and some of the “casino Indians” they would be better off if the reservations were sold, the money divided and the inhabitants given the kind of short-term aid given to foreign refugees for acclimation. But that would be “politically incorrect”, so it just goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
What evidence do you have of “system racism”? in police departments?
 
vsedriver . . .
So yes, they were oppressive.
Click to expand...
Careful. Your predispositions are showing.

Why is it not the other way around? Why was it not the Indians who oppressed the Spaniards?

Do you think mixed blood blacks commit systemic racism against non mixed blood blacks too?

Was Obama oppressing black people because his black unemployment numbers were terrible?

(This is the kind of conclusions I would be forced to draw with your erroneous principles.)

Why are you implicitly accusing Latinos of systemic racism against Mexican Indians (who are almost always of mixed blood).

You don’t marry someone you are allegedly oppressing out of bigotry.

As I said, yes there were exceptions (on both sides).

But no systemic racism of the Mexican people as a whole against the Indians there.

I stand by everything I have said.
 
Last edited:
Food for thought here.

I don’t know whether the Aztecs oppressed the Spaniards, but they sure oppressed other Indians, which is why Cortez had a huge army of Indian allies.

And racism is very common among black people, and Hispanics as well.
 
VanitasVanitatum . . .
Because the Spaniards were where the Indians lived and they took over.
Click to expand...
So what? This has the false built-in presupposition that you cannot oppress someone unless you go to their land.

It also assumes that the Mexican Indians could not fight back.

Your pre-suppositions assume a low-ball view of the Mexican Indians.

So the next question is if this is correct, WHY do you think that?

I too think the Mexican Indians were no match for the Spaniards, but probably for different reasons.

You seem to tie this to race.

I see the Indians inability to deal with the Spaniards as associated with their darkened intellect associated with their paganism.

I think you are injecting racial issues into the equation when there is no racism.

The question is WHY?
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
It also assumes that the Mexican Indians could not fight back.
Click to expand...
They sure could, and nearly wiped out the Spaniards. But the Spaniards returned with a huge army of Indian allies who hated the Aztecs for their oppression of the surrounding peoples. In the meantime, smallpox took a terrible toll on the Aztecs so their ability to fight was diminished.

The Spaniards retained the relationship with the Indian allies, particularly the Tlaxcalans, and integrated them into their society. Tlaxcalans carried guns, rode horses. Some had titles of Spanish nobility, and their villages had autonomy from Spanish rule.
 
Cathoholic said:
So what? This has the false built-in presupposition that you cannot oppress someone unless you go to their land.
Click to expand...
If the Spaniards are guests and they start taking over the land then they have a physical high ground that makes it hard for the Indians to be more guilty. I’m not saying that everything was wrong but abuses did occur because of an imperfect humanity.
Cathoholic said:
You seem to tie this to race.
Click to expand...
That’s your bias, I don’t think race has anything to do with that.
Cathoholic said:
I think you are injecting racial issues into the equation when there is no racism.
Click to expand...
I’m not you are making things up.
 
Last edited:
That is only part of the story VanitasVanitatum.

You replied to one of my posts that I was discussing the racial dimension with @vsedriver.

Here it is again.

vsedriver speaking against Mexicans (at least the Mexicans who are of mixed heritage from Spain and Mexican Indians) . .
and they kept the old social structure they brought with them. No native blood at the top of the list, mixed next, and pure native at the bottom. So yes, they were oppressive.
Click to expand...
Notice it has to do with their “blood”.

My reply to vsedriver?
Why was it not the Indians who oppressed the Spaniards?
Do you think mixed blood blacks commit systemic racism against non mixed blood blacks too?
Was Obama oppressing black people because his black unemployment numbers were terrible?
(This is the kind of conclusions I would be forced to draw with your erroneous principles.)
Why are you implicitly accusing Latinos of systemic racism against Mexican Indians (who are almost always of mixed blood).
You don’t marry someone you are allegedly oppressing out of bigotry.
Click to expand...
.

Now @VanitasVanitatum continuing along the racial (or at least “blood”) lines (not changing the basis for this alleged systemic oppression based upon race (or if you want to call it “blood” fine) . . . . .
Because the Spaniards were where the Indians lived and they took over.
Click to expand...
Cathoholic’s response to VanitasVanitatum . . .
I think you are injecting racial issues into the equation when there is no racism.

The question is WHY?
Click to expand...
Now VanitasVanitatum is making up his (her?) reply is not based upon race . . . .
I don’t think race has anything to do with that.
Click to expand...
OK. What are you alluding to then VanitasVanitatum in your writings here so I can respond to THAT?

VanitasVanitatum also said . . .
If the Spaniards are guests and they start taking over the land then they have a physical high ground that makes it hard for the Indians to be more guilty.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. Locals can oppress the stranger and sojourner too.

Each situation needs to be looked at individually.
EXODUS 23:9 9 “You shall not oppress a stranger; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Click to expand...
(Notice locals CAN “oppress a stranger”.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top