What would you like to ask a Catholic?

[Peter_J]

Dear friend, It would seem you have been influenced by propeganda designed to at the least; confuse you and the FACTS:

That’s certainly a possibility – I’m not saying that as a commentary on HH particularly, I just believe that there’s an enourmous amount of propaganda around.

Having said that, I’d like to add that what is even more frustrating is that talking about propaganda tends to turn into a “You’re the one with propaganda.” “No. You’re the one with propaganda.” back and forth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Here is a link to an article with many reference links by an accredited journalist that might get you to a more original, complete, and very graphic expositon of what the man was really like; By his account, Bartolome became physically ill just recounting the horrors he witnessed. (Article)

A couple of comments on this article you linked. First of all, if you are critizing history being written by the victors and the Catholic Encyclopedia being biased. Then you should know that the credibility of the source of the article you posted is highly questioned.

Second, The person (Rivera) writing this article is part of a group of people that are making claims that have not been corroborated. As a native of Puerto Rico (And from the town of the Cacique Arasibo), I can tell you that there has never been a recognized “tribe” from the Taino population as being in existence in the present time.

Third, the slavery and the working conditions were indeed too harsh and the belief is that what little was left of the Taino population is either dead or mixed so deeply that the claim of some of the members of this group to be 70% Taino is a joke. I would love to see a DNA test and see 90% Castillian blood with about 5% African and a chance of 5% American blood because of the cross cultural situation since 1898.

It’s curious that he cites a 1516 document from Pedro Martir, when by 1511 or so he was in Egypt and it wasn’t until 1518-20 that “El Consejo de las Indias” was formed by the King of Spain. If I remember correctly, this council was formed take the authority from Columbus (Whom I think was named Governor at the time) and have a Royal Court appointed to have the authority. Martir was named to this Council ~1520. I would need to verify this more but by 1516, Martir’s sources must have been “hearsay”.

I am familiar with De Las Casas and his work.

And to be honest, I have never been too fond of the KoC namesake. I totally endorse their mission and they are great men of God trying to live a Christ like life for their Church and community.

At the same time, I cannot meet you in your court but I’ll meet you in the middle.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Do Catholics pray to Mary? As a protestant, that’s a big hang up for me. My Catholic friend tells me no, they do not pray to her nor worship her. And yet I have looked at websites for different Catholic churches around the country and right on the sites some of them talk about praying to Mary. And also, there is a term “co-redemptrix with Christ” (I apologize, I know I didn’t spell that correctly) - what does that mean?

Yes, Catholics pray to Mary but we do not worship her. Prayer is not the same as worship.

We may pray to anyone, you, your pastor, Mary or the Saints, asking for their prayers for us without there being any hint of worship. In no case do Catholics ascribe to Mary that which is reserved to God. We do not believe that Mary grants any petitions out of her own power. She is not divine.

Mary does not save us. Mary does not forgive our sins. Mary, as Queen Mother, has a great deal of influence with her Son, so her prayers are particularly efficacious and to be desired by the faithful, but she is not God. Prayer is the only method we have of asking for her assistance.

As a child, sometimes when I wanted something from my dad, I would ask my mom because I thought she would be more likely to get my dad’s approval than I would without her assistance. You could say that on those occasions, I prayed to my mom that she would get my dad to do something for me. We do the same with Mary. We are still children asking our mother for help.

‘Co-Redemptrix’ is not an official title granted by the Church. It refers to Mary’s singular cooperation with the Holy Spirit in bringing Christ into the world and therefore, Salvation to Mankind. ‘Accessory before the fact’, if you will.

Mary, Mother of Salvation
How to Explain the “Co-Redemptrix” to Evangelicals


MARY’S CO-OPERATION IS TOTALLY UNIQUE
Pope John Paul II

1. Down the centuries the Church has reflected on Mary’s co-operation in the work of salvation, deepening the analysis of her association with Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. St Augustine already gave the Blessed Virgin the title “co-operator” in the Redemption (cf. De Sancta Virginitate, 6; PL 40, 399), a title which emphasizes Mary’s joint but subordinate action with Christ the Redeemer.

Reflection has developed along these lines, particularly since the 15th century. Some feared there might be a desire to put Mary on the same level as Christ. Actually the Church’s teaching makes a clear distinction between the Mother and the Son in the work of salvation, explaining the Blessed Virgin’s subordination, as co-operator, to the one Redeemer.

Moreover, when the Apostle Paul says: “For we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), he maintains the real possibility for man to co-operate with God. The collaboration of believers, which obviously excludes any equality with him, is expressed in the proclamation of the Gospel and in their personal contribution to its taking root in human hearts.

Mary’s co-operation is unique and unrepeatable

1. However, applied to Mary, the term “co-operator” acquires a specific meaning. The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavour to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary, instead, co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.

 

[PJM]

=Sochi;11893198]Thank you for the time and effort evidenced by your answer. I am only two years shy of your young age. Having been deeply involved in the Catholic education system until the scales fell from my eyes, I respect your credentials and understand the great deal of work and study that went into them. My post, however, was not an accusation, it was a sincere inquiry based on a deal of research on the man after hearing some disturbing rumors in conversation. On looking for material about him, I found the rumors to be cleaned up versions of what actually was recorded by CC himself, Bartolome de las Casas, and others. Bartolome renounced his worldly goods to become a priest and fight on behalf of the natives. His job was short, as within ten years they had, many millions, all been exterminated or had died miserable deaths under the reign of Columbus. Of course this is a wise manner of dealing with things which are indeed in that category. However, your own lack of research, or reluctance to do it, cannot conscionably constitute “unfounded and unproven” on my part. Also, I am not leveling charges, you are taking a simple well defined question as an attack.Yes, I went there and read it. And you are right, PJM, it doesn’t support what I said, for a simple reason: It is a PG rated version not quoting original documentation, and the single author reference it provides looks good, but again, while it claims to be based on original documents, does not spell out the horrors in fact included in those. Perhaps you noticed that it is a Catholic article referencing Catholic articles. Might I usefully remind you the history is written by the victors? And surely you are aware that our Church has a deep history of denial about the facts of its misadventures. Perhaps that is why our current Pope is such a fabulously great breeze of fresh air?

Here is a link to an article with many reference links by an accredited journalist that might get you to a more original, complete, and very graphic expositon of what the man was really like; By his account, Bartolome became physically ill just recounting the horrors he witnessed. (Article)

This is a very pious statement, and honorable as a defensive act, but unnecessary, as I am not attacking the Church. Your reaction, from here, is nearly identical to a common phenomenon: A person has a minor breach of etiquette or inconsistency pointed out, and it is reflexively transferred to and blown up as an ethnic issue. Here you have done exactly that with an issue which isn’t even about religion, it is about a perhaps understandable mistake in association, given common ignorance. I’m just asking why, in your opinion as a Catholic, when this could be a negative perception in the light of new knowledge, hasn’t it been adjusted? It is a procedural question regarding one instance, not a wholesale attack on Christendom.

Further, your claim that the “Church [and rightly so] remains the “Bulls-Eye” target of ALL other faiths,” is besides the point at hand, and simply not so, your perception being one of ommission and greatly embellished paranoia. It is the position of someone very touchily defensive and, for the most part, categorizing legitimate questions and doubts from positions other than your learned own as attacks. That is paranoia, not apologetics.

In fact, I invite you to submit our conversation to your Marian teachers or to an interfaith scholar, Catholic or otherwise, and see if they disagree with me. You have basically set my legitimate question up as a straw man so you could defend the Church against an attack I’m not making. In fact, in analysis, it would be easy to show that my question could be in the category of a friend telling another that there is spinach in their teeth, or their fly is open. Methinks you protest way too much.
HUH??? Would you please explain how you made a staggering leap to that perception???

• I was going to make some other comments on the nature of your salutation and close relevant to the contents, but that is another matter. Thanks for your time and effort in responding.

FYI:

I’m still in the process of further research. I WILL get back to you ASAP

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Sochi]

Thanks for your comment, Isaiah! I always appreciate more information.

A couple of comments on this article you linked. First of all, if you are critizing history being written by the victors and the Catholic Encyclopedia being biased. Then you should know that the credibility of the source of the article you posted is highly questioned.

Well, the “victors” were the Spanish, who were Catholic. They wrote the original documents. And all I implied about the Catholic Encyclopedia article was that it was incomplete. We wouldn’t expect, (I don’t,) an exhaustive treatment there. That is not necessarily a bias, for as I said, it may with good reason be a PG rated presentation, and there may be space considerations as well. That isn’t necessarily a bias, it is an editorial choice accounting for audience and the scope of the work. But similarly to Eusebius, it may be the case that they omitted all those items which would discredit the Church and her rulers, and magnified those which would exalt her. That was his own admission, and it is possible that it happened again. I don’t know. But it is not important, as in the CE’s accreditation of the article, it is narrowly sourced. So what do you mean “highly questioned” and by whom, and why?

And the information in that article is as well very brief. I cited it because it had some links to other sites which touched on the question at hand but which as a group, again are not exhaustive.

Second, The person (Rivera) writing this article is part of a group of people that are making claims that have not been corroborated. As a native of Puerto Rico (And from the town of the Cacique Arasibo), I can tell you that there has never been a recognized “tribe” from the Taino population as being in existence in the present time.

That is good to know. What is that group, and why do you think they are making those claims? And the why does the Puerto Rico web site claim the Taino as being a sub group of the Arawaks at the time of the Spanish invasion? Could it be that there isn’t “a recognized “tribe” from the Taino population as being in existence in the present time” because they were exterminated? From here your statement sounds like corroborative evidence.

Third, the slavery and the working conditions were indeed too harsh and the belief is that what little was left of the Taino population is either dead or mixed so deeply that the claim of some of the members of this group to be 70% Taino is a joke. I would love to see a DNA test and see 90% Castillian blood with about 5% African and a chance of 5% American blood because of the cross cultural situation since 1898.

More corroboration. Mixed blood under the conditions of slavery, as it is in the US, is evidence going to sexual abuse. Not so different from the documented practice here in California of some of the early missionaries requiring intercourse of their prospective baptizees as a condition of their salvation. CC refused the natives baptism at all, so they could continue to be enslaved and sold.

It’s curious that he cites a 1516 document from Pedro Martir, when by 1511 or so he was in Egypt and it wasn’t until 1518-20 that “El Consejo de las Indias” was formed by the King of Spain. If I remember correctly, this council was formed take the authority from Columbus (Whom I think was named Governor at the time) and have a Royal Court appointed to have the authority. Martir was named to this Council ~1520. I would need to verify this more but by 1516, Martir’s sources must have been “hearsay”.

Or documentation. If you know about all this, then it is pretty clear that you know that those around CC were way less than happy about his ways and means, and conveyed their sentiments to Spain by letter, etc. Those we have, as we do the writtings of de las Casas, and they are more original than much of the writings that the Faith is based on.

I am familiar with De Las Casas and his work.

Cool!

And to be honest, I have never been too fond of the KoC namesake. I totally endorse their mission and they are great men of God trying to live a Christ like life for their Church and community.

I am a fan of any such work as well, Isaiah. It is way not the work I’m asking about! It is only the the name of the group. Their work, of course is very praise worthy, so all the more reason to question their title!

At the same time, I cannot meet you in your court but I’ll meet you in the middle.

Well, to me you have at least a foot in it already.

Thanks for your note!

 

[Sochi]

FYI:

I’m still in the process of further research. I WILL get back to you ASAP

God Bless you,
Patrick

Not a problem. A waste of electrons to quote me again; I know my name, lol!

 

[marywarfield]

I will assume that you are A Catholic who has taken on a role of pedagogy for some reason or other, as distinct from being the Church itself, and thus answer in your own capacity and according to your inculcation/indoctrination however well and for whatever reason you feel you might represent the Church. But you asked, so I am very curious as to why a body of Roman Catholics alleged to have as their goal the protection of the Pope and the faith could in any conscionable way be named, or continue to be named, after Christopher Columbus???

I was on the verge of joining this group and was actually in the ceremony when, after being assured I could ask questions, my inquiries were avoided, diverted, dismissed, and at last ignored. this after having heard the oath, which might to some degree explain what to me appears on the face as a horribly unfortunate anomaly. So I removed the robe and left the room. I’m glad, as years later I discovered historic information about CC that kind of blew me out of the water. Publicly this would apply to why we have a National holiday named after this creep. But pertinent to this venue, I’m actually dumbfounded that there has not been a major public retraction of their name, and huge apology on the part of the KC for ever being associated from such a bastardly scoundrel as their current namesake.

As you must by now surely know, Columbus was a robber who is directly responsible for the genocide of about 1,000,000 natives. While he was doing that he conducted sex trafficking of Indians, including children as young as 9 years old. He forced slave labor and any who did not comply had noses or ears cut off. He worked them to death through exhaustion and hunger. He cut of the hands of an entire tribe and left them. He roasted them alive. He hunted them with dogs and let the dogs eat them. He also fed some of their infants to his dogs. All this after writing to Queen Isabelle that they were more exemplary as Christians than Christians. But they weren’t, so that excused his actions in his mind, so it seems. His actions were so horrible that one of his associates became a priest and spent his life fighting the aftermath of Columbus arrival. And indeed, he was finally deported in shame by his own associates as being too horrific an influence even for them.

So that is the guy who is the namesake of a organization that protects the Pope. Is that not a wonderful reflection on His Holiness? And yet, the name persists. Why?

A. The Church is filled with sinners. Kind of the point
you know.
B. you should really try and forgive Columbus. He knew not
what he did and didn’t even know where he was.
C. the K of C does not guard the Pope. They are a
charity organization.
D. The Swiss Guard protects the Pope.

 

[Sochi]

A. The Church is filled with sinners. Kind of the point
you know.
B. you should really try and forgive Columbus. He knew not
what he did and didn’t even know where he was.
C. the K of C does not guard the Pope. They are a
charity organization.
D. The Swiss Guard protects the Pope.

I know all that, Angel. But none of that is to the point.

Regarding B: No, he didn’t know what he started. In the US, 100 million Native Americans were lost due to the European invasion. As to what he did when and where he was, he wrote in so many explicit words to Isabella that the native he met were more christian than christians. Then he enslave and killed them. He didn’t know what he was doing? Perhaps not; it is said that he referred to the bow of a ship as “the pointy end.” But what he did he did to human beings, and set a trend. And we honor him???

And about “C.” In their oath, as I heard it, they are sworn to protect the Pope, but not as the Swiss Guard. And as I indicated I respect their charity work.

And about your first line, A: “But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and brother who most needed a friend yet had not a single one, the one sinner among us all who had the highest and clearest right to every Christian’s daily and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable reason that his was the first and greatest need, he being among sinners the supremest?”

~Mark Twain’s Autobiography

I like your signature quote.

 

[marywarfield]

I know all that, Angel. But none of that is to the point.

Regarding B: No, he didn’t know what he started. In the US, 100 million Native Americans were lost due to the European invasion. As to what he did when and where he was, he wrote in so many explicit words to Isabella that the native he met were more christian than christians. Then he enslave and killed them. He didn’t know what he was doing? Perhaps not; it is said that he referred to the bow of a ship as “the pointy end.” But what he did he did to human beings, and set a trend. And we honor him???

And about “C.” In their oath, as I heard it, they are sworn to protect the Pope, but not as the Swiss Guard. And as I indicated I respect their charity work.

And about your first line, A: “But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and brother who most needed a friend yet had not a single one, the one sinner among us all who had the highest and clearest right to every Christian’s daily and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable reason that his was the first and greatest need, he being among sinners the supremest?”

~Mark Twain’s Autobiography

I like your signature quote.

Hey if the K of C continue in their reparative charity
work it might be enough to get old Chris to Heaven if
he can find it.
One never knows. One can but try.

 

[Sochi]

Hey if the K of C continue in their reparative charity
work it might be enough to get old Chris to Heaven if
he can find it.
One never knows. One can but try.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But it is not important, as in the CE’s accreditation of the article, it is narrowly sourced.

So a narrowly source article should be narrowly taken into consideration, no?

So what do you mean “highly questioned” and by whom, and why?

Are you familiar with the terms: “scraper”, “content farms”, “aggregation”, and how they play around search optimization algorithms?

If you are, then you can realize where I’m coming from and the leaders in the industry are coming from as well. If not, then I have nothing for you and my comment will mean nothing.

And the information in that article is as well very brief. I cited it because it had some links to other sites which touched on the question at hand but which as a group, again are not exhaustive.

Right, but should we be careful not to use brief proposals that we ourselves have not researched enough?

That is good to know. What is that group, and why do you think they are making those claims? And the why does the Puerto Rico web site claim the Taino as being a sub group of the Arawaks at the time of the Spanish invasion? Could it be that there isn’t “a recognized “tribe” from the Taino population as being in existence in the present time” because they were exterminated? From here your statement sounds like corroborative evidence.
More corroboration. Mixed blood under the conditions of slavery, as it is in the US, is evidence going to sexual abuse. Not so different from the documented practice here in California of some of the early missionaries requiring intercourse of their prospective baptizees as a condition of their salvation. CC refused the natives baptism at all, so they could continue to be enslaved and sold.

Again, you are leaving other major factors out…

The Tainos lived in the La Española (Dominican Republic and Haiti) and San Juan Bautista (Puerto Rico) in their vast majority. In Puerto Rico the Tainos were organized in yucayeques (Villas) and organized in “bohiques” and “caciques” - not separate tribes, per se.

There was another Tribe known as the “Caciques”, the Caciques were proficient at navigating the waters and were cannibals. They were enemies of the Tainos. And they did not get along at all…

Other major factor that came into play was diseases. I believe the most common ones were smallpox and measles, a lot of the Taino population died from them. Also, the Tainos did not like the invasion and since they believed in life after death, a lot of them committed suicide as an alternative of dealing with the Spaniards taking over the land.

Tagging over your next comment…

Or documentation. If you know about all this, then it is pretty clear that you know that those around CC were way less than happy about his ways and means, and conveyed their sentiments to Spain by letter, etc. Those we have, as we do the writtings of de las Casas, and they are more original than much of the writings that the Faith is based on.

Yes, Spain was brutal to the natives. The forced labor and abuses killed a lot of people. That’s why the slave trade from Africa became popular. The natives were disappearing. The Catholic Church did not like this one bit and as you may be aware - Bartolome de las Casas [known as the Apostle for the Indies - El Apostol de las Indias] wrote extensively about how the State needed to treat the native as humans. Bartolome is considered to be the 1st Civil Rights activist. Do I need to stress that he was a Catholic Dominican Monk? Yes.

I am a fan of any such work as well, Isaiah. It is way not the work I’m asking about! It is only the the name of the group. Their work, of course is very praise worthy, so all the more reason to question their title!

Indeed, that’s why I’m not fond of their namesake.

Well, to me you have at least a foot in it already.

Oh no, don’t overestimate me being reasonable with crossing the river

Thanks for your note!

:tiphat:

 

[PJM]

=Sochi;11905905]Thanks for your comment, Isaiah! I always appreciate more information.
Well, the “victors” were the Spanish, who were Catholic. They wrote the original documents. And all I implied about the Catholic Encyclopedia article was that it was incomplete. We wouldn’t expect, (I don’t,) an exhaustive treatment there. That is not necessarily a bias, for as I said, it may with good reason be a PG rated presentation, and there may be space considerations as well. That isn’t necessarily a bias, it is an editorial choice accounting for audience and the scope of the work. But similarly to Eusebius, it may be the case that they omitted all those items which would discredit the Church and her rulers, and magnified those which would exalt her. That was his own admission, and it is possible that it happened again. I don’t know. But it is not important, as in the CE’s accreditation of the article, it is narrowly sourced. So what do you mean “highly questioned” and by whom, and why?

And the information in that article is as well very brief. I cited it because it had some links to other sites which touched on the question at hand but which as a group, again are not exhaustive.
That is good to know. What is that group, and why do you think they are making those claims? And the why does the Puerto Rico web site claim the Taino as being a sub group of the Arawaks at the time of the Spanish invasion? Could it be that there isn’t “a recognized “tribe” from the Taino population as being in existence in the present time” because they were exterminated? From here your statement sounds like corroborative evidence.
More corroboration. Mixed blood under the conditions of slavery, as it is in the US, is evidence going to sexual abuse. Not so different from the documented practice here in California of some of the early missionaries requiring intercourse of their prospective baptizees as a condition of their salvation. CC refused the natives baptism at all, so they could continue to be enslaved and sold.
Or documentation. If you know about all this, then it is pretty clear that you know that those around CC were way less than happy about his ways and means, and conveyed their sentiments to Spain by letter, etc. Those we have, as we do the writtings of de las Casas, and they are more original than much of the writings that the Faith is based on.
Cool!
I am a fan of any such work as well, Isaiah. It is way not the work I’m asking about! It is only the the name of the group. Their work, of course is very praise worthy, so all the more reason to question their title!
Well, to me you have at least a foot in it already.

Thanks for your note!

My dear friend in Christ,

I spent considerable time today at the Library and on the internet and was unable to confirm your accussations of Columbus.

It does seem reasonable to blame Columbus for the InInquisition or the war with the Moores. Certainly slavery is an evil; but at the time of Chirst and the time of Columbus it was an accepted practice. Was he a “nice guy?” May be not; but he had a tsk to do and did it as he saw best. No I do not agree with everything he did. But thats hindsight management.

I conclude that your position is a result of an agenda driven motive and not supportable.

If, my friend, you turned you’re back on God, God’s church and the Sacraments; you would be most prudent to rethink PRAYERFULLY, your position.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Sochi]

I spent considerable time today at the Library and on the internet and was unable to confirm your accussations of Columbus.

It does seem reasonable to blame Columbus for the InInquisition or the war with the Moores. Certainly slavery is an evil; but at the time of Chirst and the time of Columbus it was an accepted practice. Was he a “nice guy?” May be not; but he had a tsk to do and did it as he saw best. No I do not agree with everything he did. But thats hindsight management.

I conclude that your position is a result of an agenda driven motive and not supportable.

So I guess you became your own historian? That goes towards effort and is commendable. “Considerable time in the library?” I know people for whom that is ten, twenty minutes tops. Which library? My grammar school, St. John’s, had a library, so does my living room, but perhaps you went downtown to Miami. I don’t know. Bibliography of search? I am sorry I don’t have the time this moment, but will forward you part of mine, and then you may continue your research.

If, my friend, you turned you’re back on God, God’s church and the Sacraments; you would be most prudent to rethink PRAYERFULLY, your position.

PJM, your niceties do not cover that this is irrelevant to the point at hand, which I pointed out could be construed as an attempt to elevate the pubic face of the KoC. As it stands, it might as well be named as knights of a former Grand Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Or the inquisitors who burned the writings of St. Theresa of Avila. This, despite a fine record of very good works, insofar as it wasn’t missionary in nature. I know you mean well, but your faith is pertinent to your experience only. In mine it cannot have any foundation whatsoever any more, as it is not even, from here, in the right ball park. You might think about why, omitting the prayers. But I appreciate what must certainly be your good intentions. Thank you for that.

 

[DAML72]

Because I know His voice.

Because my own private judgement drove me mad and wanted to go my own way for my own motives. In fighting Jesus - I lost myself - He found me. I have denied Him and He has been merciful to me, I don’t want to fight Him anymore. So I surrendered myself and He brought me Home.

It’s a lot more complicated and long than that, but this will do for now. Definitely something to go over coffee.

On a more individual and private matter - Like you, I am well traveled through different faiths and other things not necessarily called faiths. I’ve looked for Him in all the wrong places. I’ve fought Catholicism for many years, in the end He brought me back - Here is the only place where I don’t have to cover the sun with the palm of my hand and pretend it’s not there, iow - I don’t have to ignore anything.

But these are just private personal grumblings, and while they play a part - they are not the reason.

I know His voice.

With the exception of having been raised Catholic, same here.

 

[PJM]

Sochi;11907670]So I guess you became your own historian? That goes towards effort and is commendable. “Considerable time in the library?” I know people for whom that is ten, twenty minutes tops. Which library? My grammar school, St. John’s, had a library, so does my living room, but perhaps you went downtown to Miami. I don’t know. Bibliography of search? I am sorry I don’t have the time this moment, but will forward you part of mine, and then you may continue your research.

PJM, your niceties do not cover that this is irrelevant to the point at hand, which I pointed out could be construed as an attempt to elevate the pubic face of the KoC. As it stands, it might as well be named as knights of a former Grand Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Or the inquisitors who burned the writings of St. Theresa of Avila. This, despite a fine record of very good works, insofar as it wasn’t missionary in nature. I know you mean well, but your faith is pertinent to your experience only. In mine it cannot have any foundation whatsoever any more, as it is not even, from here, in the right ball park. You might think about why, omitting the prayers. But I appreciate what must certainly be your good intentions. Thank you for that.

Following Christ example, I’m comfortable allowing folks to make their own choices.

Conversions has never been a part of my “jobi-title”. That’s God’s Territory .

I’m grateful for the kindess of your post.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, I am to understand that an ecclesiastically sanctioned act of spite, touted as a “simple explanation,” should serve to preserve the the alleged innocence of associating a Monster with an organization vowed to protect the Church? So was CC a model of the intensity and depths of fervor the KoC would go to to accomplish a defeat or eradication of Protestants? If so, does that stand today? Their oath might suggest so, unless it’s language has been softened. The one I heard wouldn’t fly either in public or as a representation of the Church today.

And please, Randy, if it is your perception that this is about gaining “milage,” you can join PJM int the penalty box for both over thinking and over reacting, though yours is in print a milder case. I don’t have a “sinister motive,” unless pushing for disassociation of the purported Church founded by God from yet another reign of terror qualifies as such. Many Church skeletons are in the past and undo-able. But ceasing the use of the name of such a hypocritical beast as CC could only be a sign of benevolent change on the part of the Church, or at lest the KoC, unless their greater priority is saving face when it is already too late in this particular matter. Isn’t there a well known dictum to “Go, and sin no more?” Sin actually means to miss the point. Perhaps the KoC might then re-examine their original motivations, that is all.

So the question remains: given what we know now, despite what ignorance or deliberate intentions motivated the organization at it inception, ought there not be some sort of course adjustment, given that there is now a widespread knowledge of CC’s actual history, and movements to unseat him as an object of ignorant National honor? Or are you OK with what he did because he was a Catholic who, for instance, refused baptism to interested natives because then they couldn’t be sold into slavery?

Personally, I couldn’t care less about Christopher Columbus or the KofC.

I just don’t think it is a terribly effective tool with which to bludgeon the Catholic Church.

Come to think of it…stay the course. This is something you should devote ALL of your time to.

 

[Sochi]

Personally, I couldn’t care less about Christopher Columbus or the KofC.

I just don’t think it is a terribly effective tool with which to bludgeon the Catholic Church.

Come to think of it…stay the course. This is something you should devote ALL of your time to.

Maybe you could care less about yourself, either, ? Why are so many many on here so paranoid??? Randy, what you are sing is like someone accusing me of assault and battery because I told them they have zipper in need of attention or spinach in their teeth. “ALL of [my time”??? What the you-know-what??? I asked a simple question on invitation, and the rest has been irrelevant escalation or denial on the part of others. A simple “I don’t know” would have been way sufficient, or even “that’s not my purview, why don’t you ask them?” But there were denials and irrelevancies that seemed require responses, at least to keep my position free of some very imaginative embellishments, yours among them. Is *your faith so weak that you resort to stuff like this to get your jollies and a false sense of verification? Get real, Randy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Maybe you could care less about yourself, either, ? Why are so many many on here so paranoid??? Randy, what you are sing is like someone accusing me of assault and battery because I told them they have zipper in need of attention or spinach in their teeth. “ALL of [my time”??? What the you-know-what??? I asked a simple question on invitation, and the rest has been irrelevant escalation or denial on the part of others. A simple “I don’t know” would have been way sufficient, or even “that’s not my purview, why don’t you ask them?” But there were denials and irrelevancies that seemed require responses, at least to keep my position free of some very imaginative embellishments, yours among them. Is *your

faith so weak that you resort to stuff like this to get your jollies and a false sense of verification? Get real, Randy.

Let’s start over.

You seem to be very concerned - possibly even outraged - about the fact that there is a Catholic organization called the “Knights of Columbus”. I gather you feel that Columbus was an individual who was unworthy of such an honor.

Good so far?

Now my question: Why is this subject important to you?

 

[benjohnson]

While Columbus does have a rather interesting and horrid past, I’ve often found his modern political detractors have a much more interesting and horrid future in mind of all of us.

As for naming the Knights of Columbus, remember that even St. Paul was redeemed in Christ.

 

[Sochi]

While Columbus does have a rather interesting and horrid past, I’ve often found his modern political detractors have a much more interesting and horrid future in mind of all of us.

As for naming the Knights of Columbus, remember that even St. Paul was redeemed in Christ.

What the heck does that mean??? Is there now a “Columbus detractors evil plot to overthrow the hyper rich oligarchy and makes us slaves in another way” conspiracy??? Have I fallen through the looking glass into a pit of paranoia on here? And I don’t doubt CC’s ultimate “salvation,” but again, what has any of this to do with the point, other than people spouting?