Um, because it’s the truth? (As opposed to the Truth[sub]TM[/sub].)
Even Huitzilopochtli?
That’s not what the Catholic Church says:
Some Christian denominations do say “tough luck forever” about the unbaptized who never heard of Christ, but the Catholic Church isn’t one of them.
That’s good to know – but I’m fairly certain that was not Church doctrine at the relevant period, i.e., when the Spanish landed in Mexico. What is it, something post-Vatican-II?
I think Church doctrine at that time was pretty much “Don’t kill all the bastards; we need slaves.”
But he wasn’t bearing false witness against anyone, i.e., slandering. He was reaching a different value judgment on whether Christianity had benefited Latin America than you might reach. I can say that the 1971 Cleveland Cavaliers contributed more to the NBA than any team of their era. That would be poor judgment and would lack significant factual support, but as a value judgment, it does not amount to traducing Red Auerbach.
My guess is that it is, though IANACatholic and I was born after Vatican II in any case. I’m pretty sure the doctrine was rather different at the time of the Spanish conquests in the Americas.
But it is Church doctrine now, at the time when the pope was making his speech. I’d say that’s the relevant period here- the pope probably feels no obligation to keep what he says in accordance with 16th century Catholic doctrine, especially if that doctrine has changed since then. I suspect that something like the concept of “baptism by desire” is probably what he’s talking about when he says the Native Americans were seeking Christ without knowing it.
I agree with you there, which is a very large part of why I am not a Catholic or any other kind of Christian.
And that’s the sort of thing JPII would have said in a speech like this, and the current pope would not, IMO.
Because, otherwise, people might think that he thinks that everything the missionaries did was good, because he thinks they were good overall. Or people might think that he might believe something like the old justification that slave traders used but that is repugnant to most people today- that the slaves were better off being enslaved and Christian than free and pagan or Muslim, so the slave traders were actually doing the slaves a favor.
Uh, I think in Jesus’s view, ALL human beings were your “neighbor”. Not just Mister Rogers.
On edit, I see that others have expressed the same view. Still, I like my wording better.
And I’ve responded to them too. My point is that even when everyone is your neighbor (a point I’ve never disputed), there is a difference between (a) slandering another person (forbidden by the Commandmant) and (b) defending the overall worthwhileness of your church’s historical involvement in a region (a value judgment about history, not about the character or actions of another human).
Ah, so bearing false witness for someone is peachy-fine, then?
Like I said earlier, Jesus would have pointed out the duplicity of such an approach to the Commandments. In fact, he did just that in the case of some of the other Commandments.
True. But it’s kinda helpful if we all start with the same facts.
We’re all entitled to our own opinions. We’re not entitled to our own facts.
If he reaches a much more benevolent view of Roman Catholicism’s introduction to Latin America than I, he is being dishonest if in so doing he ignores the facts that would lead many to see things a different way. If he wrestles with those facts and comes to a different conclusion, I can examine his logic and decide whether I agree with it or not. But if he doesn’t bother dealing at all with unpleasant facts in the process of reaching pleasant conclusions, that’s a whitewash. It’s a false witness.
“Big Lips” King (AKA Martin Luther) had a fucking dream about tolerance and respect, regardless of race or religion.
I had a dream where I went to Taco Bell.
My dream came true.
Oh, I’m so sorry. Are you feeling better now?
I just went to Taco Bell, what do you think?
Surely you feel better now that you’ve left the Taco Bell than while you were there.
Or have the stomach cramps just kicked in?
Big Lips King? Is there some joke there that I’m missing…?
As to the OP, this is an easy one. I don’t expect the Pope to apologize for all the past wrongs of the Church, but he’s out of his freakin’ mind if he thinks the coming of Christianity to the New World (North, Central, or South) did not include a massive imposition of one culture on another. Codices were burned, languages were suppressed, customs were outlawed… whole ways of life were eliminated. It doesn’t matter that there weren’t any real “good guys” back in the 16th century (pretty much everyone thought it was OK to conquer other lands and peoples). The fact remains that Christianity and other aspects of European culture were imposed on Native peoples routinely, and with the support of the Church.
It took me a minute to get the point, too. Basically, Scylla’s demonstrating the lack of difference between “Joey the Rat” as an epithet for the leader of the world’s largest religious denomination and “Big-Lips King” as an epithet for a beloved civil rights leader.
I don’t agree that there’s an exact correspondence, but I did get it, and think it was actually a fairly clever and understated swipe.
The thing is, it sounds like the ultimate chutzpah or at the very least a Stalinesque re-write of history to put such a spin on events.
At the same time millions of Latin Americans have bought into it, knowing what they and we all know.
Sometimes I think I belong to another species.
Oh, that never occurred to me. I guess I just don’t put a racially motivated joke on the same plane as a play on someone’s name.
Oh man, Scylla, did you get the new Huitzilopochtli Mexica Fiesta Trainwreck? Gotta hand it to Taco Bell, they getting creative, and down to the good God Almighty roots of quick mexican fare: It’s a deep-fried turkey meat corn tortilla taco, then wrapped in another larger flour tortilla, a generous layer of Nopalito cactus,(which rocks, BTW), and thenanother layer of chicken meat, deep-fried again, and smothered in their new Sacrilicious Xtreme Fire sauce.
I heard they wanted to include a cute little repro Aztec knife with it originally, but that got nixed at the front office. There were also some folks who thought that the HMFT was just too garish, and protested the Sacrificial Heart aspect of it’s nutritional value, but those folks just don’t know Flavor, to my mind.
So, carry on with the illuminating discussion of World Conquest and why we should not just beam with pride that Jesus would have loved it all.
PS: Dear Pope,
Please read some history, please? It wasn’t a religion that tranformed the New World native people; it was the diseases brought by colonists. Please ask your God about that one for me. I’m a simple sort, and that didn’t seem very fair at all.
Fuck Peter Angelos with a chainsaw.
There, I’ve demonstrated my anti-Baltimore Orioles fans bigotry. 