C
- Status
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Can we ask whether these converts were more likely to be saved before or after their conversions?
This is not the question the secular media is asking. Sadly, it seems not to be the question purported Catholics quoted in the media are asking either.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
This is not the question the secular media is asking. Sadly, it seems not to be the question purported Catholics quoted in the media are asking either.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
I
Isa1983
Guest
In this intervention I will say what is thought, felt and said in Latin America, and when I give my personal opinion I’ll indicate it. I am conservative catholic that respects the authorities of the Church, but also I am Latin American and there are aspects that should be discussed more often.
The conquest and colonization of Latin America didn’t begin for evangelical purposes in the first place. The “conquerors” -oh! how difficult is to use that word even more than 500 years later!- weren’t, in majority, “honorable” men: ex convicted, thieves, ordinary sailors. They all had economical difficulties in Spain, so the “adventure” was an interesting option. So those were men willing to do anything to succeed in this journey.
And that, of course, included killing the natives, mostly men. And raping their daughters, wives, mothers… and those that survived were used as slaves. That despite that Spanish men brought diseases indians didn’t know, and couldn’t resist -like flu, for example. We all are aware of the political power that the Catholic Church had in Europe right then, and even if it may sound contradictory, many “conquerors” were devoted catholics, so to stablish a new order the other one would have to be destroyed. And that, of course, included religious traditions.
So in my opinion, organizations that defend indigenious people’s rights aren’t wrong when they say that “evangelization” was another strategy to strengthen colonization. Spanish destroyed the other social, economical, political and religious order to make indians obbey the king of Spain. And during colonization Felipe II was the king, a very devoted but inflexible catholic.
Still, the relations between indians populations weren’t like the Holy Eden. There were many struggles of power, restraints and rancours between greatest cultures and little ones. Many academics say that some of the most developed empires in he New World -for example, the Aztecas- fell by the weight of their own greatness. So we could say that Spanish empire came “in the right moment”, strategically speaking. But that’s another point.
So he sent more religious missionaries to America to convert indians, and those who denied to convert were killed. So is it a “friendly encounter”? It sounds more like coertion. The encounter came later, and its greatest representation is the Virgin of Guadalupe story, when Our Lady talked to Juan Diego, a very poor but humble indigenious man. Still, this is another point that, in my opinion, should have more visibility in the media and history books: many catholic priests -nuns came later- that were franciscan, dominics and jesuits defended the cause of indigenious people that were killed or suffered in any way possible, and one of the most known is Fray Bartolomé de las Casas.
So it’s false that the whole Catholic Church was looking up only to its private interests -because colonization was a very profitable strategy-. Many priests that were in direct contact with the reality here tried to sensibilize other sectors, and they made what was in their power to defend the natives.
And now, in my opinion, the Catholic Church seems to be the religion that respects more local traditions. During Holy Week, we have many processions, every town has a patron saint and parishes celebrate the dates dedicated to them, and protestant just don’t accept them. They consider them pagan.
Considering the Pope’s visit to Brazil recently, I think it was good for him and his acceptance in Latin America that he recognized in public the sufferings of native populations during colonization. But also I think that the Pope isn’t as close to the developing world’s sufferings and challenges. And many latin americans think the same. Maybe that’s why, when he anounced that he was the new Pope, he didn’t make his speech in spanish -he did in german, english, italian and I don’t remember which other languages-. I think it’s a big challenge for him to get closer to Latin American Church, because there are bridges that aren’t stablished, there are rencours that haven’t healed in more than 500 years, and need to be if we want to really talk about an encounter of religions in Latin America.
This is especially important considering that today’s world are needing missionary journeys more than ever. There are a lot of places to be evangelized out there, and I hope that lessons learnt in Latin American colonization won’t be ignored in other places, and we can’t just pretend that history hasn’t taught us anything.
Blessings for you all.
Isa.
The conquest and colonization of Latin America didn’t begin for evangelical purposes in the first place. The “conquerors” -oh! how difficult is to use that word even more than 500 years later!- weren’t, in majority, “honorable” men: ex convicted, thieves, ordinary sailors. They all had economical difficulties in Spain, so the “adventure” was an interesting option. So those were men willing to do anything to succeed in this journey.
And that, of course, included killing the natives, mostly men. And raping their daughters, wives, mothers… and those that survived were used as slaves. That despite that Spanish men brought diseases indians didn’t know, and couldn’t resist -like flu, for example. We all are aware of the political power that the Catholic Church had in Europe right then, and even if it may sound contradictory, many “conquerors” were devoted catholics, so to stablish a new order the other one would have to be destroyed. And that, of course, included religious traditions.
So in my opinion, organizations that defend indigenious people’s rights aren’t wrong when they say that “evangelization” was another strategy to strengthen colonization. Spanish destroyed the other social, economical, political and religious order to make indians obbey the king of Spain. And during colonization Felipe II was the king, a very devoted but inflexible catholic.
Still, the relations between indians populations weren’t like the Holy Eden. There were many struggles of power, restraints and rancours between greatest cultures and little ones. Many academics say that some of the most developed empires in he New World -for example, the Aztecas- fell by the weight of their own greatness. So we could say that Spanish empire came “in the right moment”, strategically speaking. But that’s another point.
So he sent more religious missionaries to America to convert indians, and those who denied to convert were killed. So is it a “friendly encounter”? It sounds more like coertion. The encounter came later, and its greatest representation is the Virgin of Guadalupe story, when Our Lady talked to Juan Diego, a very poor but humble indigenious man. Still, this is another point that, in my opinion, should have more visibility in the media and history books: many catholic priests -nuns came later- that were franciscan, dominics and jesuits defended the cause of indigenious people that were killed or suffered in any way possible, and one of the most known is Fray Bartolomé de las Casas.
So it’s false that the whole Catholic Church was looking up only to its private interests -because colonization was a very profitable strategy-. Many priests that were in direct contact with the reality here tried to sensibilize other sectors, and they made what was in their power to defend the natives.
And now, in my opinion, the Catholic Church seems to be the religion that respects more local traditions. During Holy Week, we have many processions, every town has a patron saint and parishes celebrate the dates dedicated to them, and protestant just don’t accept them. They consider them pagan.
Considering the Pope’s visit to Brazil recently, I think it was good for him and his acceptance in Latin America that he recognized in public the sufferings of native populations during colonization. But also I think that the Pope isn’t as close to the developing world’s sufferings and challenges. And many latin americans think the same. Maybe that’s why, when he anounced that he was the new Pope, he didn’t make his speech in spanish -he did in german, english, italian and I don’t remember which other languages-. I think it’s a big challenge for him to get closer to Latin American Church, because there are bridges that aren’t stablished, there are rencours that haven’t healed in more than 500 years, and need to be if we want to really talk about an encounter of religions in Latin America.
This is especially important considering that today’s world are needing missionary journeys more than ever. There are a lot of places to be evangelized out there, and I hope that lessons learnt in Latin American colonization won’t be ignored in other places, and we can’t just pretend that history hasn’t taught us anything.
Blessings for you all.
Isa.
M
melensdad
Guest
Bear in mind it was the Spanish crown, not the Pope, who sent the troops here.
I’d say that it was simple conquest with forced evangelization, it has happened in history before. Look to Norway for an example that is on almost the opposite side of the world from South America, but where there was forced conversion.
The fact is that the Spanish evangelized and conquered. But the Catholic Church was not to blame.
I’d say that it was simple conquest with forced evangelization, it has happened in history before. Look to Norway for an example that is on almost the opposite side of the world from South America, but where there was forced conversion.
The fact is that the Spanish evangelized and conquered. But the Catholic Church was not to blame.
A
Augustine22
Guest
I’m with Melensdad. IMO, if these people did horrible things (and I don’t doubt that some did) then the best thing they did was bring the faith there, too. Would it be better if Central and South America were still pagan? How many more people have ended up in heaven because of this?
In the end, what is it all about? Isn’t it about getting the most souls to God in heaven?
I’m not saying evil wasn’t done by Catholics. But they weren’t doing it from their faith, but in spite of it or from a bad understanding of it.
But God writes straight with crooked lines.
In the end, what is it all about? Isn’t it about getting the most souls to God in heaven?
I’m not saying evil wasn’t done by Catholics. But they weren’t doing it from their faith, but in spite of it or from a bad understanding of it.
But God writes straight with crooked lines.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Pope Paul III condemned any forced coversions, enslavement, or oppression of the native population. Of course, many ignored him (somethings never change 
).
papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
).papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
G
Genesis315
Guest
You make a good point, but we must make sure not to overlook evil means, even if the end was good. Yes, people were better off with the faith, but that doesn’t make an evil acts any more ok. Just because God brings good out of evil doesn’t make the evil any less evil. St. Rose of Lima wasn’t down there doing major penance for nothing.
I
Isa1983
Guest
Pope Paul III condemned any forced coversions, enslavement, or oppression of the native population. Of course, many ignored him (somethings never change
papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
Good point!
A
Augustine22
Guest
I agree with you, Genesis315. I’m definately not talking about ends justifying means. Maybe I’m just thinking that before people turn the whole time into one big horror, they see the pearl of great price they received, too.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
The “Indian Rights Groups”, aka “Hate Europeans Groups”, have a vested interest in continued hatred between the “natives” and the “non-natives”, whatever those terms actually mean, for power and financial reasons.
That sums up the reason these groups foment “anger” instead of love.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
D
DL82
Guest
Two other points to make:
Yes, there was coercion in the past, which is terrible, but there isn’t now. If imposing Catholicism was such a terrible thing for the Spanish conquerors to do, how come we don’t see millions of South Americans returning to paganism now? We do see some drifting away from the Catholic Church towards Evangelicalism, but often, ironically, this is because they see Catholicism as so bound up with the pagan folk traditions that were retained by their ancestors! (I could also make a point about the economic conquest of Latin America by the USA and the imposition of American Evangelical evangelists, but that’s not the point here).
Also, the religious beliefs of Latin American peoples were not a matter of free conscience before the Spanish arrived. The Inca and Aztec rulers considered themselves to be the incarnate Sun God, and demanded worship from all their people, often including human sacrifice! What compassionate Catholic could look on such a situation and not want to change it by any means at their disposal?
Yes, there was coercion in the past, which is terrible, but there isn’t now. If imposing Catholicism was such a terrible thing for the Spanish conquerors to do, how come we don’t see millions of South Americans returning to paganism now? We do see some drifting away from the Catholic Church towards Evangelicalism, but often, ironically, this is because they see Catholicism as so bound up with the pagan folk traditions that were retained by their ancestors! (I could also make a point about the economic conquest of Latin America by the USA and the imposition of American Evangelical evangelists, but that’s not the point here).
Also, the religious beliefs of Latin American peoples were not a matter of free conscience before the Spanish arrived. The Inca and Aztec rulers considered themselves to be the incarnate Sun God, and demanded worship from all their people, often including human sacrifice! What compassionate Catholic could look on such a situation and not want to change it by any means at their disposal?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Current history study is showing that the Catholic Church’s political power in Spain, wasn’t as strong as we were led to believe.
In fact, most pre-US history taught in the United States, comes via the British, who were enemies with Catholic Spain. Over the course of time, the British slanted much of the history of the Catholic nations, in their favor. The “Black Legends,” which was a political campaign of propaganda used against the Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, by England, ended up in history books and is still used today and considered factual. However, slowly historians are discovering that this history against the Church was often fabricated and exagerated.
Jim
In fact, most pre-US history taught in the United States, comes via the British, who were enemies with Catholic Spain. Over the course of time, the British slanted much of the history of the Catholic nations, in their favor. The “Black Legends,” which was a political campaign of propaganda used against the Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, by England, ended up in history books and is still used today and considered factual. However, slowly historians are discovering that this history against the Church was often fabricated and exagerated.
Jim
J
JW10631
Guest
Latin America holds a special place of interest to me. My *esposa *is a native of Colombia, one of the most tormented of all Latin American nations.
The history of Latin America, from the time of Columbus to the present day, is not something easily summed up in a message board post. In fact, it can’t be done at all.
I have a 900 page book written by a USC professor called *The Epic of Latin America. *It is a fascinating book, especially for someone who loves history.
Those who point a finger and blame Spain and the Catholic Church for the destruction of the Indian way of life are looking for a cause to make themselves into Jesse Jackson types.
The Indian way of life in the Western Hemisphere was doomed. I dare say if the English had landed in the New World first, there would be a lot fewer people of Indian descent in the Western Hemisphere.
Cortes and his Spanish conquistadores had Indian allies in the Tlaxcalan Indians, a fierce warrior tribe who sought to defeat the hated Aztecs and their practice of human sacrifice.
Our Lady of Guadalupe led to the conversion of millions in Latin America.
One can find much fault with the way Spain and Portugal - and England - colonized the New World. All treated the Indians badly. All used slavery. However, the Catholic Church sought to help the Indians throughout the Western Hemishpere. The Jesuits established missions throughout Latin America, taught the Indians how to farm, how to read and write Spanish and Portugese, gave them respect. When the Jesuits were expelled and repressed, the Indians were treated much worse.
The Spanish who were cruel to the Indians did so in direct violation of laws that date back to Queen Isabella.
The Liberators of Latin America - Bolivar, San Martin, O’Higgins - were often Masons or at least not much at being Catholic. The Mexican Government twice in its history violently repressed the Catholic church - the first time under Juarez, the second time in the Revolution of the early 20th Century.
Latin America has had a long history of blaming someone else for its problems - the Catholic Church, Spain, the United States, etc. Maril Vargas Llosa has pointed this out in his book, The Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot.
In a recent interview between Raymond Arroyo and George Weigel, Weigel pointed out that Pope Benedict stated, in so many words, that Latin America needs to look to itself, and stop blaming “the Colossus of the North”. Caudillos, the latest of which are Castro, Chavez and Morales in Bolivia, have long blamed the US for all of their countries’ problems.
The Catholic Church has always faced struggles in Latin America. Latin America has been culturally Catholic, but the state of catechesis is usually not good and there have usually been shortages of vocations, much of which were filled by Spanish missionaries.
While many in Latin America do blame the US for their problems, the sheer number of converts to Evangelical churches, the Mormons, JW’s etc. shows they have no problem adopting American “religions”.
The history of Latin America, from the time of Columbus to the present day, is not something easily summed up in a message board post. In fact, it can’t be done at all.
I have a 900 page book written by a USC professor called *The Epic of Latin America. *It is a fascinating book, especially for someone who loves history.
Those who point a finger and blame Spain and the Catholic Church for the destruction of the Indian way of life are looking for a cause to make themselves into Jesse Jackson types.
The Indian way of life in the Western Hemisphere was doomed. I dare say if the English had landed in the New World first, there would be a lot fewer people of Indian descent in the Western Hemisphere.
Cortes and his Spanish conquistadores had Indian allies in the Tlaxcalan Indians, a fierce warrior tribe who sought to defeat the hated Aztecs and their practice of human sacrifice.
Our Lady of Guadalupe led to the conversion of millions in Latin America.
One can find much fault with the way Spain and Portugal - and England - colonized the New World. All treated the Indians badly. All used slavery. However, the Catholic Church sought to help the Indians throughout the Western Hemishpere. The Jesuits established missions throughout Latin America, taught the Indians how to farm, how to read and write Spanish and Portugese, gave them respect. When the Jesuits were expelled and repressed, the Indians were treated much worse.
The Spanish who were cruel to the Indians did so in direct violation of laws that date back to Queen Isabella.
The Liberators of Latin America - Bolivar, San Martin, O’Higgins - were often Masons or at least not much at being Catholic. The Mexican Government twice in its history violently repressed the Catholic church - the first time under Juarez, the second time in the Revolution of the early 20th Century.
Latin America has had a long history of blaming someone else for its problems - the Catholic Church, Spain, the United States, etc. Maril Vargas Llosa has pointed this out in his book, The Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot.
In a recent interview between Raymond Arroyo and George Weigel, Weigel pointed out that Pope Benedict stated, in so many words, that Latin America needs to look to itself, and stop blaming “the Colossus of the North”. Caudillos, the latest of which are Castro, Chavez and Morales in Bolivia, have long blamed the US for all of their countries’ problems.
The Catholic Church has always faced struggles in Latin America. Latin America has been culturally Catholic, but the state of catechesis is usually not good and there have usually been shortages of vocations, much of which were filled by Spanish missionaries.
While many in Latin America do blame the US for their problems, the sheer number of converts to Evangelical churches, the Mormons, JW’s etc. shows they have no problem adopting American “religions”.
Same here. The Philippines has a parallel history with that of Latin America because of our common Spanish heritage. The leaders of the revolution (guys like Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, Rizal, Mabini) here in the 19th century were Masons as well and their Katipunan (the secret society committed to overthrowing Spain) used rituals based on Masonic rites (which is something admitted by everyone). Heck, even the Philippine flag shows Masonic influence.
Kinda makes me wonder if these “patriots” had something more than liberation in mind. Perhaps anti-clericalism had something to do with it too. I know the Church has had its black sheep too, perhaps even in places like Latin America, but here in the Philippines, it’s the Spanish friars who are made to look like such evil creatures, and I’m having a hard time attaching such a view on the Spanish priests in general at the time. Some, maybe, but surely, not all?
- Status